How Old? Part Three

Jesus Christ, our glorious Lord and Savior, warned us about the enemy of our souls and his evil devices employed against us in John chapters eight and ten.  We see the devil instituting his contradiction of God’s Word right from the beginning, and the disastrous results it brought to people as a result of our parent’s listening to Satan rather than God.

43 “Why do you not understand My speech?  Because you are not able to listen to My word.  44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do.  He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him.  When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.  45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me.”  John 8:43-45 10

“The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy.  I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.  John 10:10 1

Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made.  And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”  2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’”  4 Then the serpent said to the woman, “You shall not surely die.  5 For God know that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”  6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate.  She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.  Genesis 3:1-6

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.  20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.  Romans 1:18-21 

This is the state of much of the scientific community that embraces and champions evolution.  The promotion of this error has brought in much wickedness to our world.  Murder, mayhem, perversion and corruption of the truth are paraded throughout the world as a result of belief in this godless system of thought and philosophy. Notice, that it is not a science.  Even those who are ardent defenders of this bankrupt system of belief have acknowledged the same.

One of the most influential evolutionist theorists of his day, Dr. Ernst Mayr, who was the Alexander Agassiz professor of zoology at Harvard University said this:

Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place.  Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explanation of such events and processes.  Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.1

Please notice the terms used in the quote above; attempts to explain, constructs a historical narrative, tentative reconstruction, trying to explain.  These terms are used purposefully because the evolutionist wasn’t present at the act of Creation, nor does he really know how life came about on this beautiful planet.  The simplest believer in Christ knows, though, because she believes the Word of God the Bible.  The evolutionist’s goal is to foolishly do away with the necessity for God by rejection of His Creation of the heavens and the earth with their made up stories.  There, of course, will be protestations that they do have a record that concords with their empty theory, the fossil record, but what does it truthfully show?  Darwin himself knew that if the fossil record did not show transitional forms extant for researchers to demonstrate the veracity of macroevolution, then it was a theory without basis in fact.

As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed.  Why do we not find them imbedded in the crust of the earth?  Why is all nature not in confusion instead of being as we see them, well-defined species?  Geological research does not yield the infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species required by the theory; and this is the most obvious of the many objections which may be argued against it.  The explanation lies, however, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.2

Darwin was counting on fossil finds to corroborate his theory; instead we find the very opposite occurring.  Here are the testimonies of paleontologists about the present paleontological record regarding transitional fossil forms.  There have also been recent unexpected discoveries which have upended this theory altogether.

Dr. Stephen J. Gould, professor of geology and paleontology at Harvard University said the following:

All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.3

The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.4

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.  The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches: the rest is inference however reasonable, not the evidence of the fossils…yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.5

This is the confession of Dr. Colin Patterson, one time senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London which houses one of the largest inventories of fossils in the world:

I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book (Evolution).  If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would have certainly have included them…Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are not transitional fossils…I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.6

Here we have the testimony of a geologist about the fossil record; Dr. D. V. Ager, past president of the British Geological Association said this:

It must be significant that nearly all evolutionary stories I learned as a student…have now been debunked…The point emerges that, if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find—over and over again—not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.7

Finally, this is the frank admission by paleontologist Stephen Stanley of the John Hopkins University:

The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition, and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid.8

Instead, the fossil record, as conceded to by Darwin and other evolutionists, shows a sudden burst of highly advanced and developed life-forms worldwide throughout the geological record, without any transitional fossils.  Time magazine described fossil finds in the Cambrian period this way:

In a burst of creativity like nothing before or since, nature appears to have sketched out the blueprints for virtually the whole animal kingdom.  Since 1987, discoveries of major fossil beds in Greenland, in China, in Siberia, and now in Namibia have shown that the period of biological innovation occurred at virtually the same instant in geologic time all around the world.  What could possibly have powered such a radical advance? 9

This attestation to the real fossil record is further supported by the well-known evolutionist G. G. Simpson who declared:

It remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families…appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.10

Recently, non-petrified dinosaur bones have been discovered and reported to the chagrin of evolutionists. These discoveries have led to a great deal of controversy amongst scientists.  How can viable biological material be found in fossils that are supposedly millions of years old?  Dr. Mary Schweitzer, associate professor of marine, earth and atmospheric sciences at North Carolina State University, discovered soft tissue in dinosaur bones and sequenced the proteins that she found.  Based upon subsequent tests she proved that what she had found was collagen and protein, and not some biofilm produced by bacteria.  This all occurred from the time that she reported her discovery, in 2005, to her verification that is was indeed collagen and protein from the dinosaur in, 2009. In 2011, a Swedish team of researchers found soft tissue and biomolecules in the bones of a Mosasaur.11

Another find of dinosaur remains that were not petrified occurred in the summer of 2012, when Mark Armitage went on a dinosaur dig in the Hell Creek formation in Glendive, Montana.  Mark Armitage, a microscopy specialist working as manager in the Electron and Confocal Microscopy Suite in the Biology Department at California State University Northridge from January 2010 to February 2013, discovered a Triceratops horn with soft tissue still intact.  This find was published in Acta Histochemica in its February 12, 2013 issue.  He was subsequently terminated from his position despite endorsement from his colleague and general editor of the journal, Dr. Steven B. Oppenheimer.  Apparently, those who stray from the mandated evolutionist philosophy are considered as traitors to the cause of “science”.12

Based upon these soft-tissue finds a scientist, Dr. Thomas Seiler, a physicist from Germany, decided to run C-14 dating on dinosaur bones from digs in Colorado, Texas, Montana, and Alaska.  This testing, carefully carried out to avoid contamination and then compared with fossilized plant materials, showed that the dinosaur bones were all in the range of between 22,000 to 39,000 years old.  The members of the Paleochronology group presented their findings at the at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, August 13-17, a conference of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS).  Although the findings were accepted by those who were present, this report was later scrubbed from conference website because two chairmen could not accept the findings.  One of the most interesting parts of the video report of their presentation shows a slide at the end of the presentation which states that the findings of the report can be explained by rapid horizontal strata formation as observed in laboratory experiments with moving water.13

Despite all of the hot air to the contrary, the evolutionists have nothing that supports their anti-Christ, anti-biblical ravings except their febrile imaginations.   Rather than follow the science where it leads, they will do all they can to suppress the truth, just as we are told in Romans 1:18-21.  They reject the truth because they are sinners deluded by their foolish hatred of God and refusal to worship, thank and glorify Him as God.  The amazing diversity and complexity of life on this planet, coupled with the paucity of evidence, and even evidence to the contrary, is the reason why many scientists and academics, 113,000 in the United States alone, find Darwinian evolution to be an implausible explanation for the origin of life on this planet.14  As believers, we have no business kowtowing to the supposed superiority of the scientific experts when it comes to origins.  We know the truth and should proclaim and defend it loud and clear.  God bless us as we stand up for the truth and glorify Him.

3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.  Hebrews 11:3

  1. Ferris, Timothy (editor). 2001. The Best American Science Writing 2001. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
  2. Darwin, Charles, The Origin of Species, Vol. 2,6th ed., p. 49.
  3. S. J. Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” Natural History, vol. 86 (6) (June-July 1997): p. 24.
  4. S. J. Gould, “Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?,” Paleobiology, vol. 6(1) (January 1980): p. 127.

5. S. J. Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” p. 22.  J. Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic      Pace,” Natural History, vol. 86 (5) May 1997): p. 14.

  1. Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (San Diego, CA: Master Books, 1984), p. 89, quoting a personal letter (written April 10, 1979) from Dr. Colin Patterson to Luther D. Sunderland.
  2. “The Nature of the Fossil Record,” Proceedings of the Geological Association, vol. 87. no. 2 (1976): p. 132-133.
  3. Stephen Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process (1979), p. 39.
  4. J. Madeleine Nash, “When Life Exploded,” Time (December 1995) p. 68
  5. George G. Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1944), p. 107
  6. John Michael Fischer, “Carbon-14 Dinosaur Bones are Less than 40,000 Years Old”, New Geology US. http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html
  7. Ibid.
  8. Ibid.
  9. Dr. Jerry Bergman, “Darwin Skeptics, A Select List of Science Academics, Scientists, and Scholars Who are Skeptical of Darwinism”, August 24, 2014. www.rae.org/pdf/darwinskeptics.pdf

http://www.wayoflife.org/pdf/20150417.pdf

http://www.wayoflife.org/index_files/how_many_scientists_reject_darwinism.html

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Creation and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

64 Responses to How Old? Part Three

  1. gracealone1 says:

    Thank you for “digging up” all this “dirt” on all the so called scientists who claim to have evolved from a pool of goo some 4B years ago. Their antics are laughable and sad. Their fickle science and even more fickle conclusions do not go unnoticed in heaven, nor here on earth by those who have been gifted the faith to know the truth.

    Darrel

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Very nice! I’d forgotten some of these quotes. The words to look up for evolutionist dilemma at its greatest is “cambrian Explosion”… the sudden explosion of thousands of life forms on the earth all at once… as if they appeared on the earth over the space of, let’s say… a week… give or take a day.
    They say it was 543 million years ago, but back in the 70’s they were saying it was more recent than that. My personal belief is it was… oh, 6,000 years ago.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Eliza says:

      These quotes were taken from the book Darwin’s Demise written by Dr. Joe White and Dr. Nicholas Comninellis published by Master’s Books 2001. I didn’t cite the book because I just quoted the quotes. God bless us.

      Like

      • archaeopteryx1 says:

        Actually, Liza, it seems that the Cambrian Explosion was a little longer than that – about 20 million years longer, in fact.

        The “Cambrian Explosion” refers to the appearance in the fossil record of most major animal body plans about 543 million years ago. The new fossils appear in an interval of 20 million years or less.

        What triggered the Cambrian Explosion? And why did so much change occur at this time? Several different theories address the origin of the Cambrian Explosion, proposing that dramatic environmental changes must have opened up new niches for natural selection to operate upon. These proposals include the runaway glaciation theory, which proposes that glaciers briefly covered much of the earth, and the resultant loss of habitat created bottlenecks where evolution could act more rapidly. Another theory suggests that a change in atmospheric oxygen led to this sudden burst in evolutionary changes. Yet another proposal is that major changes in the seafloor, from algae mat-covered surfaces in the late Precambrian to soft muddy bottoms later in the Cambrian, had dramatic evolutionary and ecological impacts.

        SOURCES:
        P.F. Hoffman and D.P. Schrag, “The snowball Earth hypothesis: testing the limits of global change,” Terra Nova 14 (2002): 129-155.

        Simon Conway Morris, The Cambrian Explosion; and D.A. Fike, J.P. Grotzinger, L.M. Pratt, and R.E. Summons, “Oxidation of the Ediacaran ocean,” Nature 444 (2006): 744-747.

        David Bottjer, James Hagadorn, and Stephen Dornbos, “The Cambrian Substrate Revolution,” GSA Today 10, no. 9 (2000): 1-7.

        Like

        • Eliza says:

          Only the theory of evolution gives this long time frame. However, the important point to note is that there are no transitional fossils and life appeared fully formed and functioning as it is today. Evolution is the construct given to the evidence by sinners who despise God and want their way rather than His way.

          Here is what the Nobel laureate George Wald had to say in a 1978 issue of Scientific American, under the title of “Origin, Life, and Evolution”: There are only two possible explanations as to how life arose: Spontaneous generation arising to evolution or a supernatural creative act of God….There is no other possibility. Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others, but that just leaves us with only one other possibility….that life came as a supernatural act of creation by God, but I can’t accept that philosophy because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution.

          https://holdingforthhisword.wordpress.com/2015/02/16/straying/

          Transitional fossil evidence is strikingly lacking from the fossil record as admitted to by the paleontologists. No transitional forms, no Darwinian evolution, admitted to by Darwin himself. Let’s don’t forget that the information extant at the time of the theory was very meager and so all sorts of scenarios could be dreamed up as “factual”. God created the heavens and the earth as attested to and witnessed to in the Scriptures in numerous places. I believe what God has said, He has not disappointed me nor will He ever disappoint me. I encourage you to repent of your sin and put your faith in Jesus Christ. God bless you.

          Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            This might answer some of your doubts – spoiler alert, my uncle Charley gets a guest shot in this:
            This was a link to more made up images supplied by the over active imaginations of evolutionists.
            Sorry to have to edit you link.

            Like

          • Eliza says:

            In relation to the “transitional fossil” that this video highlights, evolutionist fish experts Ahlberg and Clack point out the distal bones are still very much part of a fin and have nothing to do with the digits of land dwellers who walk on all fours (tetrapods). Again all this is the result of the feverish imagination of those who adamantly deny the existence of God, or those who reject the testimony of His Word the Bible that proclaims clearly that God created all that we see in six literal days.

            https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/transitional-fossils/fish-still-considered-transitional-form-evolution/

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            Are you at all familiar with mud skippers? They frequently come onto land and can survive in air for up to three and a half days. Labyrinth fish, and there are several species, such as Betas (Siamese fighting fish), have a labyrinth in their heads that allows them to breathe air, extract the oxygen from it in that labyrinth, and exhale the waste. Limbs did, in fact, evolve from fins, and conversely, the fins of dolphins and whales evolved from the feet and legs of land mammals.

            You’re simply too intelligent not to see this, Eliza. Many evolutionists are Christian, it’s not a case of either/or.

            Like

          • Eliza says:

            Yes, Ark, and they are still fish without being transitional forms. There is even a fish that climbs trees, but it is still a fish.
            Tetrapods have a strong pelvic girdle connected to the spinal column with heavy duty hind legs. Fish have strong, large pectoral fins and small pelvic fins, opposite of tetrapods. Evolutionists do not consider the fish that slither across land and breath air as ancestors of tetrapods.

            Oh by the way Ark, I still love you. I love you with the love of Christ and I pray that you will come to know His love also. God bless you.

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            Oh by the way Ark, I still love you.” – One way to express that, might be to call me by my correct name – just sayin’ —

            Like

          • Eliza says:

            Hey, sorry it is just so long and convoluted to write. Couldn’t you go by something a little easier? Just saying. 🙂

            Like

  3. ColorStorm says:

    This is weighty; therefore yes, we know the truth, we proclaim it, and we defend it.

    But the whole idea of science as somehow being able to ‘test’ that which is, as if God could be contained to a microscope, is laughable.

    ‘One constructs a historical narrative……………..’ that whole idea is spot on. Good stuff Eliza.
    Let God be true.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Eliza says:

      Thank you ColorStorm. This just demonstrates again that the God hating evolutionists have nothing to commend their empty philosophy as one that deserves serious consideration. God bless us.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. archaeopteryx1 says:

    All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms” – Should I pass that along to the rest of my family?

    Like

  5. Eliza says:

    Where are the transitional forms? As attested by the paleontology experts, there are no transitional fossil forms in the fossil record. Their desire to disprove Creation has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts to what is demonstrably clear evidence of God’s creation of all that we see. Since He is the Creator, He calls all men everywhere to repent of their sins, put their faith in Jesus Christ and receive the gift of eternal life that is only in Him. That offer is freely offered to any and all who will repent. That includes you Arch.

    Like

    • Ain't No Shrinking Violet says:

      Eliza, you must forgive Arch, he has odd sense of humor and uses satire a lot. He was referring to his name, archaeopteryx, which is one such transitional creature you claim doesn’t exist.

      Like

      • Eliza says:

        You are wrong. I didn’t say the transitional fossils don’t exist, the paleontologists have conceded that fact. I have already covered the supposed transitional form your friend is named after in another post, https://holdingforthhisword.wordpress.com/2015/02/16/straying/
        Thank you for commenting and I would hope that the truth that evolution is a lie would remind you of the glory of the gospel of Jesus Christ and His wondrous love for us. God bless us.

        Like

        • Ain't No Shrinking Violet says:

          Oh dear.

          Thank you for replying and I would hope that the truth that creationism is a lie will remind you of the glory that is evolution.

          Liked by 2 people

          • Eliza says:

            1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1

            At the start of everything somehow chemicals came together by some unknown force or principle and assembled phosphate groups, single or double ringed bases, five carbon sugars, amino acids, lipids, etc,. The sugars, bases and phosphate groups combined to give a huge library of information and the amino acids combined to form left-handed proteins. These then all came together to produce the first single-celled animal/plant, by some unknown law or principle. This despite the fact that the second law of thermodynamics states that everything in the universe is continuously becoming more disorganized with lower energy. This single cell life form, which is the progenitor of all life had a semi-permeable cell wall/plasma membrane, and nucleus with nucleolus and chromatin, along with many other organelles. This single celled animal then differentiated to produce organ cells, muscle cells, blood cells, skin cells, skeletal cells, etc. The information in the original single celled organism would become more complex and varied with each differentiation. All driven by some unknown force that has never been witnessed in the history of mankind. The gestation of offspring is something entirely different since all of the information for the conception and growth of the offspring is provided by the parent’s DNA.

            Which one seems more plausible? Creation of course. It would be good for you to reconsider what the Scriptures say because they are the truth.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Ain't No Shrinking Violet says:

            Eliza, you made *me* smile with this. I think it best if you stick to bible bangin’. Creationism is about as plausible as you understanding science.

            Like

          • Eliza says:

            You can try to dis me over this, but basically this is what the evolutionists say take place. I know, pretty ridiculous isn’t it? The point made that the chemicals that form the DNA, proteins, and cell membranes would have to self-assemble through some as yet unknown law or principal in order to form the single or double ringed bases; adenine, guanine, or purine, the phosphate groups, and the sugars that form the nucleotides that make up the double helix of the DNA and then give the information for all cellular processes does seem far fetched, doesn’t it? But when we consider that God, who alone is wise, made all that we see; the order, purpose, complexity, and symbiosis that is extant all around us makes perfect sense. For how could random chemicals self-assemble to produce the amazing library of information that gives the blueprint for constructing living organisms that is found in the DNA and RNA of all organisms? That is why the opening sentence in Genesis chapter 1 is so much easier to believe than the tortured and convoluted surmising that comes from the evolutionists.

            Like

          • Ain't No Shrinking Violet says:

            “That is why the opening sentence in Genesis chapter 1 is so much easier to believe than the tortured and convoluted surmising that comes from the evolutionists.”

            I strongly disagree with that statement (but do not mean to “dis you” by saying that). Some of us disagree with the bible being sound evidence as there is a lot of controversy about it, it’s authors, and the timelines it was written. Just as there is some controversy about transitional species (as you pointed out).

            I suspect the problem between us that I can admit to controversies regarding my opinions of evolution, but you will not admit to controversies about your stance on the bible. This makes a discussion between us difficult.

            Like

          • Eliza says:

            That is admitted, because you demand that I recant about the Scriptures and not call them the inspired, infallible, inerrant, preserved Word of God, something I cannot and will not do. Every time there has been a controversy raised by liberal unbelievers about the Bible they have been shown the door because the research and evidence refutes what they say.

            The dissonance that we experience is due to the fact that you are a sinner trapped in your sin and deceived by the enemy of your soul, Satan. There can never be reconciliation between us unless you repent and believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross for your sins and rose again from the dead for your justification. This spiritual transaction between you and God must be mediated by the Holy Spirit, through belief in His Son Jesus Christ as He is revealed to us in His Holy Word the Bible, otherwise it is false. So many within the visible church are deceived and misled by the enemy never coming to Christ for the salvation of their souls, and, as Jesus Christ warned, after a time they fall away. There is the hope though, that they can be brought to faith in Christ through giving them the truth and trusting the Holy Spirit to work in their hearts.

            19 Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, 20 let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins. James 5:19-20

            May God bless you with repentant faith in His Son Jesus Christ.

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            Every time there has been a controversy raised by liberal unbelievers about the Bible they have been shown the door because the research and evidence refutes what they say.” – Ouch! Is it really necessary to threaten? If, as you say, research and evidence refutes what they say, rather than threatening a visitor with banning, which that sentence would imply, wouldn’t it be more Christian to simply present that evidence and allow it to speak for itself?

            Like

          • Eliza says:

            Sorry that you misunderstood this statement. I’m not threatening banishment from the site, “shown the door” is a means to say the controversy is over, that’s all.

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            Ah, well, then I did clearly misunderstand (sorry I took so long to respond, had to run some errands), for which I apologize.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Eliza says:

            Thanks Ark

            Like

          • Ain't No Shrinking Violet says:

            Eliza, the top of your blogs states: Holding Forth The Word of God to a Wicked Generation

            Given your response to me, I think it’s safe to assume I’m a member of the wicked generation. If you will only allow people who agree with you to post on your blog, how is that preaching to the wicked? Aren’t you just talking to people like yourself, who don’t need saving?

            Like

          • Eliza says:

            Many read who never comment. The point of the blog is to hold forth God’s Word to sinners and saints alike. You have mistaken dialogue with presenting the truth. God works through giving forth His Word. If you have read my blog thoroughly, you will see that I do indeed share the truth with those who disagree with God’s Word. You and Ark are both examples of that fact. Since God’s Word is the truth, then there is no point in having a dialogue with those who reject the truth and try to supplant it with man’s reasoning led by the devil. The enemy of our souls already has a large enough audience as it is without giving this blog as a platform for his lies.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Ain't No Shrinking Violet says:

            To be fair Eliza, you haven’t even had a real conversation with me yet, other than to condemn me, call me a sinner, tell me I’ll burn, and bang me with scripture. I’ve said about 5 sentences to you and you’ve gone on and on about what a terrible person I am. You can call that “presenting the truth,” but what you’re really doing is judging me. You are a hideous example of what it is to be a christian. No need to “show me the door”…I know the way out. Thank f’ing god.

            Like

          • Eliza says:

            No I don’t know you personally, but I do know that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, but that all are offered the grace of God so their sins can be forgiven through faith in His glorious Son Jesus Christ and they can spend eternity with Him in heaven. Sorry that stating what God’s Word says offended you so much, but I think that is the crux of why fallen man does not repent of their sin and turn to Christ. They like their sin more than they love the hope of eternal life with the God who created them.

            Like

          • Eliza says:

            I don’t consider your honest statement of where you stand regarding the Word of God to be dissing me. I do know that you are deceived, sadly so, and I hope that God in His infinite mercy will bring you to believe the truth, His Word the Bible, and so be saved.

            Like

    • archaeopteryx1 says:

      My greatest concern is always the children. I respectfully hope, for their sakes, that you haven’t any children, as they will grow up in a world that knows that evolution is the way that life on this planet perpetuates itself and adapts to changing conditions, and they will be made fun of for their archaic and fallacious beliefs. Even most Christians accept evolution – fundamentalists such as yourself are in the minority of the world’s Christians.

      Like

      • Eliza says:

        I am sorry, but you have your facts askew again, sadly. A Gallup poll conducted in 2012 found that the majority of Americans hold to a young earth creation belief, 46%. Of the rest of the general public who responded to the poll, 32% believed in some form of God directed or theistic evolution. Only 15% claimed to believe in Darwinian evolution, so those who believe in naturalistic evolution are in the minority, in this country, despite the great deal of noise they make. Based upon the facts of religious affiliation throughout the world, I find your claims highly suspect. That is the way it is with atheists, they lie, lie, lie.

        In April of 2014, 840 scientists agreed with and signed the following statement: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
        This is in addition to the 113,000 scientists and academics, in the US, who find Darwinian evolution implausible.

        Children who are fed the lies of evolution are ushered into a false reality where there is no need to acknowledge or believe in God who has created them nor respond to His call to them to know Him through repentant faith in His Son Jesus Christ. They then become embroiled in a life of sinful self indulgence that causes great harm to them and those who love them. As a parent, I have witnessed the positive influence that faith in Jesus Christ has had upon my children and their understanding of the world around them. I praise God for His truth, the Bible and am very thankful that he has opened my eyes so that I can see that truth and believe in Him. Meeting Jesus Christ made it very easy to reject all of the lies that are paraded by atheists. If and when Christ reveals Himself to you, you will give the same testimony. God bless us.

        http://www.wayoflife.org/index_files/how_many_scientists_reject_darwinism.html

        Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          I didn’t say, “the majority of Americans,” I said, “fundamentalists such as yourself are in the minority of the world’s Christians.” Other countries have Christians in them, Eliza, although their numbers are dwindling, especially in Europe.

          Like

          • Eliza says:

            That is correct, sadly. However, the point is that the majority do believe in young earth creation whether they hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible or not. It is those who hold to Darwinian evolution who are in the decided minority, as are atheists.

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            That is correct, sadly.” – So I’ve gone from being a liar, to correct – that’s a refreshing change of pace. Now if I could just get those references for the million American scientists and academics who have issues with evolution, that would be much appreciated – thanks —

            Like

          • Eliza says:

            Just check out the link that I provided in my reply.

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            Found it – I’ll check it out this evening, but for now, I have tomatoes to plant while the sun shines.

            Liked by 1 person

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            I went to the site you suggested, and didn’t find it quite as “powerful” as you did, especially after reading the article carefully and doing a bit of research, I was even less impressed.

            The article to which you referred me, “How Many Scientists Reject Darwinian Evolution?,” was written by David Cloud, and is hardly an impartial review, as his return address, Fundamental Baptist Information Service would imply.

            In his opening paragraph, he states:

            There are still thousands of scientists who disagree with the Darwinian view of evolution. Among these are Christian “young earth” creationists, Christian “old earth” creationists, non-Christian theistic evolutionists, and those who believe in an undefined intelligent designer.
            Cloud goes on to state:

            According to recent research, there are an estimated 113,000 Darwin skeptic scientists and academics in the United States alone (Neil Gross and Solon Simmons, “How Religious Are America’s College and University Professors?“).

            Then I looked into the Gross and Simmons book, and discovered that in the process of writing it, Gross and Simmons surveyed only 1417 professors at American colleges and universities (including junior colleges), and the issue Gross and Simmons set out to prove, was not how many Darwin skeptics there were in academia, but rather how many of academia were religious, which is decidedly not the same thing. Interestingly, the highest percentage of Academic scientists least religious in the Gross and Simmons survey, were in the field of Biology (67%). I was left not entirely clear how Cloud could arrive at his conclusion of “113,000 Darwin skeptic scientists and academics in the United States alone” from the Gross and Simon interview of such a small number, regarding only their religiosity.

            Cloud DID include in his article this statement:

            In 1979, Science Digest reported that “scientists who utterly reject evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities.”

            — which makes it apparent, even from Cloud’s admittedly biased viewpoint, that those scientists who DO agree with the theory of evolution are decidedly in the majority.

            I think I gave it a fair examination; you likely will not, but I read it as I said I would.

            Like

          • Eliza says:

            The estimate is based upon the survey representing the larger pool, 630,000 professors, and the respondents were asked if they believed intelligent design to be a viable alternative to Darwinian evolution. Those who said yes represent approximately 113,000 of the scientists and academics represented by the survey group. My reference to the link being powerful is it lists the giants of science, who made such huge positive impacts upon the advancement of science and who also believed in creation.

            Evolution cannot explain the origins of life, and the fossil record does not support transitional fossils. Since archaeopteryx has been known since the 19th century, why didn’t Colin Patterson include it as a transitional fossil in his book, and didn’t mention it when questioned by the correspondent? Its place is controversial because of other fossil finds very similar to archaeopteryx. Some paleontologists consider it a bird, others a dinosaur, and then others a transitional form. Despite recent fossil finds its place is still controversial.

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            I think, Eliza, that what you may be doing is confusing disagreement with dissent – Albert Einstein and Neils Bohr, good friends, argued for years over quantum mechanics. Many scientists disagree with other scientists over particulars, while agreeing with them about things in general.

            I still did not see anything about the 130,000 – did I not read carefully enough (the article seemed concerned only about religiosity, not evolution), or did I not have the correct link?

            Of course, I disagree with you, but I’m here to discuss, not argue. I only treat CS as I do, simply because he is never open to discussing issues – he seems to believe that flinging scripture at an issue should resolve it forever – it ain’t necessarily so.

            Like

          • Eliza says:

            Dear Arch,
            There is dissent within the scientific community regarding the evolution of theropods to birds which I already cited in the following post:

            https://holdingforthhisword.wordpress.com/2015/02/16/straying/

            Much of forward progress in the sciences is brought about by the dissent of researchers regarding published findings. One such “discovery” that comes to mind is the “inflation of the universe”. One team of researchers supposedly found evidence, which went viral, but then his findings were proven to be the result of galactic dust. I read this in a great article in “Popular Science” May 15 issue, Nothing But the Truth. The whole point of the article was that scientists must strive for what is true and not be driven by their own enthusiasm. This is, I am afraid, what has driven much of the speculation about archaeopteryx. The better fossil remains given evidence that this creature was a bird.

            Regarding CS, I am somewhat dismayed and ashamed that you consider that our discussion does not resort to the Scriptures. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is because I stand upon the truth and testimony of the Holy Word of God, the Bible, that I even present what is going on in the scientific community regarding paleontology so that my fellow believers will be encouraged to stand for the truth and not be turned aside to the lie of Satan, who is always trying to bring what God has done and said into disrepute. How subtle is the enemy of our souls to try to eliminate the testimony of Creation that there is a wise and all-powerful God to whom we must give account. This attack upon the truth of the Scriptures and the evidence of Creation, has been used by the enemy to bring in much destructive mischief into the world and into the church. However, God knows those who are His and let everyone who names the name of Christ depart from iniquity. (2 Timothy 2:19)

            16 But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. 17 And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, 18 who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some. 19 Nevertheless the solid foundation of God stands, having this seal: “The Lord knows those who are His,” and, “Let everyone who names the name of Christ depart from iniquity.” 20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay, some for honor and some for dishonor. 21 Therefore if anyone cleanses himself from the latter, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified and useful for the Master, prepared for every good work. 2 Timothy 2:16-21

            All that I say has as its foundation the inspired, infallible, inerrant, preserved Word of God. I write to either expose and reject idle babblings (evolution) or to encourage my brethren with God’s Word in their walk with Christ. I appreciate that CS resorts to the Scriptures. May we all encourage one another with God’s Word and entice the lost to salvation with the gospel and our love for them. God bless us.

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            The whole point of the article was that scientists must strive for what is true and not be driven by their own enthusiasm. This is, I am afraid, what has driven much of the speculation about archaeopteryx. The better fossil remains given evidence that this creature was a bird.” – How would you explain these, Eliza?
            Siberian Discovery Suggests Almost All Dinosaurs Were Feathered
            If not for transitional species, where does one species begin and the other end? Does AIG have an explanation for feathered dinosaurs? In cold climates, feathers would certainly have given dinosaurs more protection and held in more heat, certainly, than scales, and it’s not difficult to see how, over time, scales could have evolved into feathers.

            Like

          • Eliza says:

            Feathered dinosaurs doesn’t mean these beasts were the transitional form for birds. That takes the theory of evolution to give the slant you are suggesting to this discovery. In the fossil record there are no transitional forms between skin, feathers, and scales. The number of transitional forms would be enormous because of the morphological differences between feathers and scales. As far as dinosaurs having feathers, some if any, if they are even dinosaurs, don’t forget that armadillos have very sturdy scales.

            https://answersingenesis.org/birds/the-evolution-of-feathers-a-major-problem-for-darwinism/

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            But clearly such evolutionary transformations do take place – the quite solid, very deadly horn on the rhinoceros, for example, evolved from simple Rhino hair. Evolution adapts organisms to changing conditions. The panda, for example, will one day become extinct, simply because evolution doesn’t work fast enough for it to find other means of nourishment, and since it is totally dependent on bamboo and since the bamboo forests are dwindling due to the encroachment of Humans, one day they will be gone.

            Like

          • Eliza says:

            That isn’t a example of evolution. It is a clear evidence of the variety of function of alpha keratin containing proteins based upon coiling of the keratin strands. So the rhino horn has alpha keratin that is highly coiled as are the quills of a porcupine, whereas human hair is less coiled. This has nothing at all whatsoever to do with evolution but with the amazing variety of function that God has provided across His creation.

            Like

  6. archaeopteryx1 says:

    “In April of 2014, 840 scientists agreed with and signed the following statement: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
    This is in addition to the 113,000 scientists and academics, in the US, who find Darwinian evolution implausible.”

    If I may, I’d like a reference for that million American scientists and academics who have issues with evolution. Would you please leave that for me? Thanks!

    Like

    • archaeopteryx1 says:

      Sorry, I’m sleepy and my vision is consequently blurred – I saw 840, and in my mind, it became 840,000. So your total figure is near 200,000, rather than a million. I just wanted to correct that before I put it away for the night.

      Like

      • Eliza says:

        Whoops. This has to be taken in the context of the evolutionist claim that there is not one scientist who does not agree with evolution. Love your sense of humor though, it made me laugh. I like a good laugh.

        It is too bad that you are deceived by your sin nature. That does make me sad. I would rather that you would repent of your sin and place your faith in Jesus Christ, who died upon the cross that your sins can be forgiven and rose again from the dead to give repentant sinners the gift of eternal life. Evolution has been proven to be a fallacy; it was just a matter of time for the emptiness of this philosophy to become apparent, as knowledge increased.

        Creation is the truth, has been all along. Given the C-14 dating on the fossilized bones, and the fact that soft tissue has been discovered in “fossilized” bones, God’s word has been vindicated, once again.

        I would think that such an intelligent man as yourself would see that this false philosophy has been rejected by many within the scientific community because it has no basis in fact and is merely the conjecture of its proponents who are gifted with a vivid imagination. Of course, believers in Jesus Christ knew this day would come because God’s Word, the Bible, is truth. We didn’t need the testimony of science to verify that for us, but of course it does because God’s Word, the Bible is the truth.

        Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          Love your sense of humor though, it made me laugh. I like a good laugh.” – I’ve always found that a spoonful of humor helps the medicine go down and is far less fattening than sugar – in fact, 4 out of five dentists recommend humor, and the fifth was wearing dentures, so….

          Speaking of statistics (see what I did there?), about those 200,00 scientists and academics that have an issue with evolution – am I going to get a URL that will allow me to see that for myself?

          Liked by 1 person

  7. gracealone1 says:

    So much bluster is made about the “science of evolution” when it’s adherents try to discredit those who know the truth: there is no such thing as “evolution” or even “theistic evolution”. “Science” is thrown up in our face with their accusative finger of “how dare you ignorant, uneducated, and mislead buffoons oppose the ‘brilliant scientists who believe in evolution.'” Yet these ‘intellectual giants’ cannot see their own double speak. On the one hand they belittle those of us who know through faith that the world was CREATED and on the other hand expect us ‘ignorant buffoons’ to accept all that they say about the origins of the universe by their form of “faith” without offering one shred of proof of any kind. Even their cherished “Big Bang” has found it’s rightful place in the trash heap of junk science, but we are still expected to swallow their nonsense about the origins of life on earth. A real scientist deals in FACTS, not conjure, wishful thinking, and theories of how things ought to be, all of which have their beginnings in unabated hatred for the God the did create them. So bluster away, and show your own ignorance, hypocrisy, and hatred for your Creator. Perhaps, just perhaps you will one day come to your senses as your sins are exposed to you and you fall on your face begging for mercy from the One you currently hate. Every real, born again Christian knows exactly what I’m talking about and it is my hope that you will, too.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Eliza says:

      Amen! May God bring sinners to repentant faith in Christ through the presentation of the truth, God’s Word, and the refutation of the lies with His truth, the Bible. God bless us.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Eliza says:

        That like must have been an accident, right Ark?

        Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          I have a newer Macbook, and it has an ‘intuitive” feature – if my cursor hovers over a link more than a preset amount of time, the computer tries to “think” for me, and decides that I want to click it. Often, when reading a comment, I’m intent on the comment and don’t particularly pay attention to where my cursor is – that’s the only explanation I can think of. I wish I knew how to turn that feature off, as I prefer to decide for myself what I want to click.

          And I’m “Arch,” not Ark – I’m the good one.

          Like

  8. ColorStorm says:

    To who it may concern:

    Eliza is condemning no one. If we are honest, the heart of man indicts itself. Do not confuse the presentation of truth with arrogance or superiority.

    Someone made the comment about the ‘glory of evolution.’ Really? You mean including the wonderful evolving of depravity such as gay ‘marriage,’ men wanting to be women, and women fashioning themselves as men? Yes, truly enlightening, and this is the fruit of evolution and atheism by the way.

    Some say believers ‘fling’ scripture…..Oh that you would wish we were so careless. We ‘present’ scripture as the foundation for all truth. Nothing on earth cannot be filtered through the truth of God.

    –And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

    But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. —

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Eliza says:

    Thank you ColorStorm. It is too bad, but we were that way once too. So there is always hope while there is life because our God saves sinners. God bless us.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s