EMPOWER YOUR FAITH

This site is excellent, I hope you check it out.

Home – EyeWitness (eyewitnessbible.org)

Thank you for coming to the dinner, either in person or in spirit… we appreciate all you have done for the Prison Ministry, and in fact for all the ministries of the Park Church of Christ…

Please Watch the included video… it’s only about 2 minutes long

You can watch the video here

https://youtu.be/F0pW3rJN2Bg?si=4ApcDkjYy_nMChJL

According to a Pew Research Center study 50% of our children raised in the Church come home from college as Atheists.

Most of us realize something seriously has gone wrong in America, and the world. 

Every time I think we have hit bottom, I see us sinking, once again, deeper (as a nation, and world) to a new level of depravity. 

For instance, how many of us would have ever dreamed we could send our children to a university, and they would come home atheist and believing in such nonsense as men can have babies? 

Now that I am among the elderly at age 75, I often find myself asking what happened to the America I knew as a child? 

The strange thing is I also remember the elderly 65 years ago asking the same questions I am asking today. 

I don’t really know how the change began, but I do know two things…. It started with the young, and it started a long time ago.  

The most important question is how we can change this downward trend.  

The children are the foundation of all civilizations… they are our future, and this is where the return to sanity and faith must begin. 

When I consider prison reform, which is actually prisoner reform begins when they are children… by changing their direction early.

But…. How do we do that?

The following 5 things represent a good start.

5 Reasons To Teach Apologetics To Your Children
Posted by
By Tatiana
October 25, 2019

5 Reasons To Teach Apologetics To Your Children
Apologetics has become a very important part of my life. I’m the type of person that needs to fully understand the why, behind every because. For ten years I’ve read countless books on Christian theology, attended conferences, and taken classes at church. I can say whole-heartedly say that I know why I believe what I believe, however, it wasn’t until recently that I felt a calling to share not only what I’ve learned, but to urge my family to always be ready.

Studies show we are losing our kids to the world in elementary, middle school, and high school and not in just in college as previously thought.

I want to challenge you into digging into God’s word deeper. I want to encourage you to teach your children more than Bible stories, and I want to help you promote a true desire for knowing God personally through His word and His creation.

• Teach apologetics to encourage a well-rooted foundation.

If you’re a believer, you’ve either read or narrated the Genesis account of creation to your children. We see it as history, as fact, as truth and we present it as such. When our children are young, they believe every word, until one day they don’t.

When they start to question what we’ve taught them we refer them to scripture and tell them of the love of Jesus. There’s nothing wrong with this of course, but we must teach our kids why we believe what we believe.

If we teach them why they will be less likely to fall prey to false teachings.

• Teach apologetics to assure them of the authority of ALL scripture.
  My Pastor always says that the best commentary on the Bible is the Bible.

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
2 Timothy 3:16-17

Every word is inspired, not just the parts we like, the parts we agree with, or the parts that are politically correct. We can trust it completely, and we are to take it literally.

• Teach apologetics to bring them to a deeper relationship with God.
  If what the Bible says about God’s character is true, then our commitment to Him must be absolute.

If His love is as deep as the Bible says it is, our sole purpose of living ought to be to please Him.

Coming to a full understanding of who He is, will bring our children and ourselves to true worship.

•  Teach apologetics to equip them with answers to the hard questions.
  Where did God come from?

Why do you believe the Bible is the word of God?

How can a God of love allow suffering in the world?

What if, you had to narrate the creation account to an atheist?

The argument most well-meaning-Christians use against the unbelief of an atheist is: it’s in the Bible. What those same well-meaning-Christians ought to remember is that the Bible holds no authority in an unbeliever’s life. How then will you make a case for Christ, the cross and the resurrection?

• Teach apologetics because you are commanded to do so.
  Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it.
  Proverbs 22:6

Teach them diligently.

And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.
Deuteronomy 6:6-7

 Here are a few Resouces for teaching your children.

https://creationtoday.org/apologetics-for-children-be-ready-always/

Foundation world view: Christian apologetics for kids

Apologetics questions every Christian Parent Needs to Learn

Child Size Apologetics 

I believe we all look for a “Better Life”

Generally we think of worldly things… maybe what would be happiness for some would to be a successful business man, or lawyer, Doctor, or maybe a great athlete.

When Jody and I were Chaplains with Hospice I never met anyone who was facing death who really cared about those things… at this time of life… the end… the things of true value come into focus… God, faith, and love of family and friends.

I didn’t meet one person who seemed to fear death, their minds were on their loved ones

The foundation of all things is LOVE….

1 John 4:10-12 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

The Royal Law…. The greatest law of all… is love… James 2:8

What if… just this one day… everyone who greets you, and asks how you are doing, you answered with … I’ve never been better!

Do you know how that would affect you, and those you greet?

What if… just this one day… If you see someone you could help in some way, and you did… do you know what that would do to two hearts?

What if… just this one day… You let one person know how much they are appreciated… where would that take their attitude… and yours?

What if… just this one day… if someone is rude to you, but rather than be defensive you just decided … to forget defense and show love in return… would that change your day, your outlook,  and the other persons as well?

What if… just this one day… You decided to forgive everyone for any perceived sin or assault against you… without being asked?   Where would that take you this day?

What if… just this one day…

YOU CHOSE LOVE

James 2:8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you do well;

This is Agape Love… it means doing for others, to put others needs equal to your own, it is an action love…  And this is the love used throughout the bible…

1 Peter 4:8 And above all things have fervent love for one another, for “love will cover a multitude of sins.”

Mark 12:28-34 Then one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, perceiving that He had answered them well, asked Him, “Which is the first commandment of all?”

29 Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.

30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment.

31 And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

32 So the scribe said to Him, “Well said, Teacher. You have spoken the truth, for there is one God, and there is no other but He.

33 And to love Him with all the heart, with all the understanding, with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself, is more than all the whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.”

34 Now when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, He said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.”

But after that no one dared question Him.

Love ends arguments

Matthew 22: 36-40 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”

37 Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’

40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

 Love God, Love Each Other, Love your Neighbor, Love your enemy…… the message to Christians is to love… everything hangs on this one thing… Love!

Yes, we have other commands to follow… but they are useless without love as the foundation…

And, they are impossible to fulfill without Love coming first.

Let’s close with these verses

Numbers 6: 22 – 26 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 23 “Speak to Aaron and his sons, saying, ‘This is the way you shall bless the children of Israel. Say to them:

24 “The Lord bless you and keep you;

25 The Lord make His face shine upon you, And be gracious to you;

26 The Lord lift up His countenance upon you,

And give you peace.” ’

And where does that peace come from if not from love… and where must the love start… with you… start a wildfire of love today…

More Evidence from the world of Science that Creation is the Answer, and Explanation of Life.

This article is from the Book “In six days”  why fifty scientists choose to believe in creation  edited by john f. ashton PhD… I suggest you buy the book: it will reveal to you that science is not supporting evolution as you might think.

Ariel A. Roth (born 1927) is a zoologist and creationist who was born in Geneva, Switzerland, and now lives in the United States. He is a leading figure in the field of flood geology, having been involved and published extensively on the creation–evolution controversy.

1. Former professor and chairman of Biology at Emmanuel Missionary College,
2. Now Andrews University and at Loma Linda University.
3. Former director of the Seventh-day Adventist run Geoscience Research Institute at Loma Linda University.
4. Editor of the journal Origins for 23 years.
5. After receiving his PhD in Biology at the University of Michigan,
6. Roth pursued research in invertebrate zoology and on fossil and living coral reefs funded by NOAA, the National Institutes of Health, and other government agencies.
7. Additional training to facilitate his research in radiation biology, geology and mathematics at various campuses of the University of California.
8. Longtime member of the Geological Society of America and the Society for Sedimentary Geology.
9. Published many articles in both scientific and popular journals and lectured worldwide[ii].

It is sometimes suggested that belief in creation is a matter of faith, while science, which usually endorses evolution, is considered to be more in the realm of reason. What concepts of faith and reason are different to evaluate and quantify[iii] we generally recognize that we have to exercise a degree of faith to believe in anything, be it science, evolution, creation, or the Bible. However, there are many good reasons to believe in creation by God in six days in fact, it seems to me that it takes a greater degree of blind faith (where there is no evidence) to believe in evolution than in the creation model of the Bible. The same problem applies to intermediate views between evolution and creation, such as theistic evolution or progressive creation, which have little support from either the data of nature or the Bible[iv].

The origin of life

Probably the most baffling problem which evolution faces is a question of the origin of life. How could living organisms which, even in their simplest forms, are extremely complex arise by themselves? The severity of the problem is well acknowledged by many competent scientists and need not be dwelt upon here.

The problem of complexity

The presence of complexity– interdependent parts that do not function unless other parts are also present– pose another major problem for evolution. For instance, a muscle is useless without a nerve going to the muscle to direct its contracting activity. But both the muscle and the nerve are useless without a complicated control mechanism in their brain to direct the contracting activity of the muscle and correlate its activity with that of other muscles. Without these three essential components, we have only useless parts. In a process of gradual evolutionary changes, how does complexity evolve?

Interdependent parts, which represent most of the components of living organisms, would not be expected from random, Undirected changes (mutations) as is proposed for evolutionary advancement.

How could these develop without the foresight of a plan for a working system? Can order arise from the turmoil of mixed- up, undirected changes? For complicated organs that involve many necessary changes, the chances are implausibly small.

Without the foresight of a plan, we would expect that the random evolutionary changes would attempt all kinds of useless combinations of parts while trying to provide for a successful evolutionary advancement. Yet as we look at living organisms over the world, we do not seem to see any of these random combinations. In nature, it appears that we are dealing largely, if not exclusively, with purposeful parts. Furthermore, if evolution is really an ongoing process, why don’t we find new developing complex organs and organisms that lack them? We would expect to find developing legs, eyes, livers, and new unknown kinds of organs, providing for evolutionary advancement in organisms that lack desirable advantages. This absence is a serious indictment against any proposed un-directed evolutionary process, and favors the concept that what we see represents the work of an intelligent creator.

The simple example of a muscle, mentioned above, pales into insignificance when we consider more complicated organs such as the eye or the brain. Each contain many interdependent systems composed of parts that would be useless without the presence of all the other necessary parts. In these systems, nothing works until all the necessary components are present and working. The eye has an automatic focusing system that adjusts the lens so as to permit us to clearly see close and distant objects. We do not fully understand how it works, but a part of the brain analyzes data from the eye and controls the muscles in the eye that change the shape of the lens. The system that controls the size of the pupil so as to adjust to light intensity and to reduce spherical lens aberration also illustrates interdependent parts. There are the 100 million light- sensitive cells in the human eye that send information to the brain through some one million nerve fibers of the optic nerve. In the brain this information is sorted into various components such as color, movement, form, and depth. It is then analyzed and combined into an intelligible picture. This involves an extremely complex array of interdependent parts. But the visual process is only part of our complex brains, which contains some 100 billion nerve cells connected by some 400,000 kilometers (about 248548.48 mi) of nerve fibers. It is estimated that there are around 100 billion connections between nerve cells in the human brain. That we can think straight (we hope most of us do!) is a witness to a marvelous, ordered complex of interdependent parts that challenges suggestions of an origin by random evolutionary changes. How could such complicated organs develop by an unplanned process?

The Search for an Evolutionary Mechanism

Movements of all kinds of things in nature tend to mix things up, be they molecules, huge boulders, or polluting substances poured into the ocean. This inexorable tendency runs counter to evolution, where organisms are supposed to have become more and more organized, from disorganized components, as the complexities of organisms evolved. How did evolution from simple to complex counter the tendency towards randomness that is so prevalent in nature? For two centuries evolutionists have been searching for a mechanism that would explain the origin of complexity, but so far this has been a virtual futile search.  

At the beginning of the 19th century, the French naturalist la marque proposed that usage of an organ- caused evolutionary advancement, such as a neck becoming longer due to usage. His views have been largely rejected. About half a century later, Charles Darwin and England proposed a system of natural selection. In this process very small variations between organisms would be subject to the competition between organisms. This would result in the survival of the more advanced forms, while the weaker ones would be eliminated. Over long periods of time, this process would gradually evolve the advanced forms of life on earth. 

While Darwin’s model of natural selection is the one usually presented in basic textbooks of biology, it has been much criticized recently for a variety of reasons. It has a fatal flaw when it comes to the question of the gradual development of biological systems with interdependent parts, and this is the case for most if not all biological systems. The problem is the very system of natural selection which Darwin proposed will tend to eliminate the interdependent parts of complex systems as these systems develop. The parts do not function until all the interdependent parts are present and the system works and provides some survival value to the Organism. These non- functioning parts will tend to be eliminated by a natural selection process that should give preference to organisms that are not encumbered with extra useless parts. For instance, in our simple example of an evolving muscle- nerve- control interdependent system: if we are at the stage where we have evolved only a muscle, that muscle would be a useless encumbrance until the nerve and control mechanisms have evolved. Until that time, natural selection would tend to eliminate those organisms with non- functioning parts of developing interdependent systems, and thus would interfere with evolutionary progress. 

Half a century after Darwin proposed his views, the Dutch biologist de Vries vigorously challenged the idea that the small variations proposed by Darwin could have any significant evolutionary effect. He proposed much larger changes, called mutations. Unfortunately, his prime example, the dwarfing of the evening primrose plant around Amsterdam, turned out to be only the recombination of traits already present in the plants and not a new mutation. The same applies to the most commonly used example of evolution: the darkening of the English peppered moth. This darkening protected the moths from predators by making them less visible as the environment darkened during the industrial revolution. The moth has again become lighter as the environment has become lighter. These changes, which are sometimes called mutations[v], are now acknowledged as representing only a fluctuation in different kinds of genes already present, and as such do not represent the novel changes of a real mutation[vi]. However, mutations, which represent more or less permanent genetic changes, were soon found in fruit flies and other organisms. But mutations are not a great breakthrough for evolution. They are almost always detrimental, and as such are more representative of a mechanism for degeneration rather than for advancement. One useful mutation out of 1000 is being generous to evolution. 

In the middle of the 20th century, leading evolutionists proposed the “modern synthesis.” Held as the final evolutionary model, it incorporated Darwin’s natural selection, de Vries mutations, and studies in population genetics. At the same time, other evolutionists were calling for much larger sudden changes than those noted for mutations. 

These larger changes were needed because of major gaps between groups of organisms and assumed evolutionary lineages, as seen in the fossil record, and also because of the inadequacy of the survival value of small evolutionary changes while developing complex systems with interdependent parts[vii]. The term “hopeful monster” was suggested for these proposed suddenly appearing new forms. But they would need matching mates to be able to breed with, and as one commented, “who will breed with a monster, hopeful or otherwise?”[viii] 

The modern synthesis did not remain as the dominant evolutionary mechanisms for very long, although many leading evolutionists still defend the model. One evolutionist comments, “and today the modern synthesis– neo- Darwinism– is not a theory, but a range of opinions which, each in his own way, tries to overcome the difficulties presented by the world of facts.”[ix] We are now in a period of diverse evolutionary opinions. A variety of new ideas and controversies have appeared. They revolve around such questions as: (1) can one really identify the evolutionary relationships of organisms? (2) are evolutionary changes gradual or sudden? (3) is natural selection important to the evolutionary process? (4) how does complexity evolve without the advantage of foresight? Computer programs attempting to answer this have been only remotely related to the complexity of the real biological world. Many scientists who do not believe in creation are criticizing the evolutionary model.[x] 

We are thus faced with the fact that after two centuries of conjecture, a workable mechanism for evolution has not been found.[xi] While the perseverance of evolutionists is commendable, it was seem that by now it is time for science to give serious consideration to other alternatives of origins, such as creation. 

The evidence from the fossils 

The fossils which represent past life on earth should have much to say about how that life originated. Some consider the fossil record that we find in the rock layers of the earth to be the strongest evidence for evolution, because there is an increase from simple to complex, as one ascends through the rock layers. However, if these layers were laid down by the great flood described in the Bible, one would also expect some sort of ascending complexity as the flood gradually destroyed the biological realms of the world that existed before it. On our present earth, we have simple life in the deep rocks, more complex life in the oceans and the most complex on land. Destruction of these realms by rising flood activity would result in a general increase in complexity.[xii] More important to the question of origins are two aspects of the fossil record that pose serious problems for the evolutionary scenario. One is the great scarcity of intermediate forms; the other is the lack of geologic time for the major evolutionary changes postulated. 

If evolution has proceeded over the eons of time postulated, we should expect a great number of intermediates between the major types of organisms, but we can scarcely find any. Charles Darwin was fully aware of the problem and openly admitted to it in his origin of species, stating, “why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate lengths? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such fine graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection that can be urged against my theory.”[xiii] Darwin then attributed the problem to the “extreme imperfection” of the fossil record. We have found millions of fossils since Darwin’s time, and the lack of intermediates remains a major problem for evolution. The paleontologist David B. Kits[xiv], at the University of Oklahoma, points out, “despite the bright promise of paleontology provides a means of ‘seeing’ evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of ‘gaps’ in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.” A very few missing links, like Archaeopteryx, which is considered to be intermediate between reptiles and birds, have been described, but these few examples do little to satisfy the many thousands expected there. 

Some evolutionists have postulated that evolution proceeds by occasional rapid jumps (punctuated equilibria[xv]), but these small jumps do not solve the problem at all. The problem for evolution is that it is between the major groups of plants and animals (phyla and divisions) that we would expect the greatest number of intermediates, and this is precisely where these intermediates are virtually absent. Any gradual process would be expected to leave all kinds of fossils between major groups as major changes evolve. It does not appear that evolution has taken place.

As one examines the details of the fossil record, it soon becomes apparent that if evolution took place, it had to proceed at a highly erratic rate of change. The model of a slow, gradual advancing evolutionary process is not supported by the fossil record as evolutionists interpret it. For instance, the simplest forms of life are assumed to have evolved around 3,500 million years ago. Yet almost 3,000 million years later, the fossil record shows little evidence of any evolutionary advancement. We are still virtually in the one- cell stage of life forms for the first five sixths of evolutionary time period then less than 100 million years later ( 1/35 of evolutionary time), virtually all the animal phyla have evolved. Some evolutionists suggest only 5-10 million years (1/ 350 of evolutionary time) for most of this.[xvi] 

Evolutionists refer to this very brief period for the evolution of most animal phyla as the “Cambrian explosion.” Samuel Bowring of the Massachusetts Institute of technology comments, “and what I like to ask my biologist friends is: how fast can evolution get before they start feeling uncomfortable?”[xvii] The phenomenon of the Cambrian explosion fits remarkably well with a model of the biblical flood which postulates that this part of the fossil record represents the level of the Seas before the flood where most of the animal phyla would be expected. Above the Cambrian explosion we have other smaller “explosions.” for instance, evolutionists propose that most mammalian orders evolved in a mere 12 million years and living orders of birds in 5-10 million years.  The fossil record as interpreted by evolutionists shows that the thousands of millions of years proposed for advancement are not there. Evolution needs all the time it can get, and the improbabilities it faces indicate that geologic time is far too short to accommodate those advancements. The rapid rates of evolution that would be required to accommodate the fossil record significantly reduce that time and accentuate even more the improbability problem of evolution. 

[i] https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-nov-24-la-oe-masci24-2009nov24-story.html#:~:text=According%20to%20a%20survey%20of%20members%20of%20the,higher%20power%2C%20while%2041%25%20say%20they%20do%20not.

[ii] Introduction From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[iii] A.A. Roth, “Do We Need To Turn Off Our Brains, When We Enter A Church? close origins 23 (1996 ): P. 63-65.

[iv] For a detailed discussion of these various points see A.A. Roth, Origins: Linking Science And Scripture (Hagerstown, MA review and Herald Pub. Assoc., 1998).

[v] For example: Carl Sagan, the Dragons of Eden: Speculations On The Evolution Of Human Intelligence (New York: Ballantine books, 1997 ), P. 28.

[vi] For example: T. H. Jakes, “Responses Of Critics,” and P. E. Johnson, Evolution As Dogma: The Establishment Of Naturalism (Dallas, TX: Houghton Publishing Co., 1990 ), P. 26-28.

[vii] Richard Benedict Goldschmidt, The Material Basis Of Evolution (New Haven, CT: Yale University press, 1940).

[viii] C. Patterson, Evolution (London: British Museum and Ithaca, and NY: Cornell University press, 1978), P. 143.

[ix] Soren Luvtrup, Darwinism: the refutation of a myth (New York: Croom Helm, 1987 ), P. 352.

[x] For a listing of nine books by non- creationist that challenge evolution or Darwinism, CP. 140-141 and Roth, origins: linking science and scripture.

[xi] More details, see chapters 5 and eight in Roth, Origins: Linking Science And Scripture.

[xii] This is discussed further in Roth, Origins: Linking Science And Scripture, chapter 10.

[xiii] Charles Darwin, The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection, Or The Preservation Of Favored Races In The Struggle For Life (London: John Murray 1859), in the reprinted edition: J. W. Burrow, editor (Penguin Books, London and NY, 1968), P. 292.

[xiv] D. B. Kits, “Paleontology And Evolutionary Theory,” Evolution 28 (1974 ),: P. 458-472.

[xv] N. Eldridge and S.J. Gould, “Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism,” in T.J.M. Schopf, editor, Models of Paleobiology (San Francisco, CA: Freeman, Cooper, and Co, 1972), p. 82-115.

[xvi] S.A. Bowring, J. P. Grotzinger, C. E. Isachsen, A.H. Knoll, S.M. Pelechaty, P. Kolosov,”Calibrating Rates of Early Cambrian Evolution, “ Science 261 (1993): p. 1293-1298.

[xvii] As quoted an M. Nash, “when life exploded,” time 146 (23 ) (1995), P. 66-74.

INTRODUCTORY WORDS ABOUT EVOLUTION

Practical Biology has made great advances in revealing the complex chemical and physical processes that permit plants, animals, bacteria, and viruses to function.

Theoretical Biology presents Evolution as the origin and method by which these complex living organisms came into existence.

Where You Came from Determines Who You Are, Why You Are Here, and Where You Are Going.

Are you an evolutionary accident or created in God’s image?

If you are a son of a chimp, you can live by the law of the jungle.

If you are a child of God, you were created in the image of God and have the privilege and duty to live by the law of God!

Did you evolve without purpose or meaning, or were you created with a divine purpose and a heavenly goal?

Two Kinds of Evolution

Micro-Evolution (small evolution) causes variable colors, shapes, and sizes of the same species; it is observed in nature and is accepted as scientific fact by Evolutionists and Creationists.

Macro-Evolution (Big Evolution) is theoretical, not factual, and proposes that non-living material accidentally evolved into plant and animal life and that inferior plant and animal life accidentally evolved into higher forms of life.

SPONTANEOUS GENERATION: TRUTH OR MYTH?

Spontaneous Generation: The Basic Premise on Which Evolution Stands

Evolution is based on the premise that life suddenly emerged from non-living material.

Spontaneous Generation Has Never Been Observed

Scientists of the late 19th century believed that maggots were spontaneously generated from the deterioration of garbage.

Louis Pasteur demonstrated in the laboratory that garbage did not produce maggots when protected under a glass covering.

Unprotected garbage attracted flies that laid their eggs on the garbage and later hatched into maggots, which are fly larvae.

He concluded that spontaneous generation is unscientific and that life always comes from previous life, not from non-life.

Yet, modern evolutionist are still advocating the same unscientific view of spontaneous generation that Pasteur refuted.

The Miller and Urey Experiment

Miller and Urey, artificially created a few amino acids and other DNA components as well as other organic substances, claiming they created life in the test tube.

These organic substances are not living matter, but only some of the components that make up life.

Even these lifeless amino acids were produced not naturally, as spontaneous generation requires, but in the laboratory under closed conditions.

The process required that water be inserted at one point of the experiment and that the resulting substances be protected from water later in the process.

In an open environment, these organic substances would have been destroyed by rain, wind, etc. as rapidly as they were formed. (The cosmos is a closed system, yet the Earth is an open system)

Miller and Urey also utilized electric shocks to form these substances, on the basis that lightning provides the same shock in nature.

The Miller and Urey experiment showed that intelligent man can produce a few of the components that make up life in a closed atmosphere. They did not demonstrate how nature could produce amino acids in an open atmosphere.

The Complicate Process by Which Non-living Material Could Evolve into Living Plants and Creatures

In order to form by chance a simple plant, the protons and neutrons in the nuclei of non-living substances would have to be miraculously replaced with a DNA molecule of a plant.

Other non-living matter would need to be miraculously combined and their nucei replaced with different DNA so as to produce bacteria, fungi, and other forms of animal life.

Plants would have to undergo dramatic changes in the DNA.

Sea Life must undergo complex DNA changes to become land creatures.

HOMOLOGY: A COMMON ANCESTOR OR A COMMON DESIGNER?

Biologists Claim: Similar Structure in Different Animals Proves Evolution

Similarity of Humans to Monkeys, Chimps, and Apes Proves Evolution

Modern biologists now believe “remarkable biochemical similarities of chimpanzee and human proteins” testify to their “incredibly close biological relationship.”

Since a chimpanzee is the closest animal in similarity to man, we would expect it to have some of the same proteins that humans have.

The Evolution of a Chimp into A Human Violates Scientific Observation

“Species” is defined by biologists as having “potential in nature to interbreed and produce fertile offspring and possess similar inherited characteristics.”

Different Species of the same genus sometimes can interbreed, but they do not produce fertile offspring.

The horse and donkey, different Species of the same Genus, can interbreed, but their offspring is a mule, that is infertile and cannot reproduce.

In no case can Species of different Genera interbreed and produce a new Genus or a new species.

The Chimpanzee is from the Genus called Pan and from the species called Troglodytes, whereas the Orangutan is from the Genus called Pongo and the species called Pygmaeus, and man is the species Homo Sapiens of the Genus Homo.

No one has ever observed a chimp give birth to a superior species of its own Genus (Pan), much less a species of a superior Genus (Homo). If it ever occurs, it will be miraculous, contrary to scientific observation.

The Evolution of A Chimpanzee into A Human Violates the Scientific Law of Cell Reproduction

Law of Reproduction: “Cells of each species possess a characteristic number of chromosomes: human cells have 46, cotton plants 52, turkeys 82, and some ferns 1,000. During normal cell division, the two daughter cells must receive the same number of chromosomes.”[iii]

Since two daughter cells must have the same number of chromosomes to reproduce, reproduction cannot occur if either of the parents has a different number of chromosomes.

Chimpanzees have 48 Chromosomes in their DNA.
Humans have 46 Chromosomes with a different number and order of the bands of genes, as well as different genes on each band of each chromosome.

A Chimp of 48 chromosomes cannot produce a fertile offspring of 46 chromosomes because it would violate the scientific Law of Cell Reproduction.

Chimpanzees cannot interbreed with humans and produce any offspring; how much less could two chimps or a chimp and another animal of the same genus produce a human being.

Intelligent scientists cannot cause a chimp to produce a superior species, much less a man.

Since a chimp’s producing a superior species has never been observed and violates the scientific law of cell reproduction, it is anti-scientific.

The Biblical View of the Fixity of the Species is More Scientific Than Evolution

Genesis 1:21,24 says “God created…every living and moving thing…according to their kinds.”

The Bible teaches the fixity of the species or kind, as observed by scientists and in conformity with the law of cell reproduction.

The Biblical law of fixity of species conforms to scientific law, whereas evolution contradicts it.

Homology Indicates a Common Designer, Not a Common Ancestry

MUTATIONS: EVOLUTION OR DEGRADATION?

Laboratory Experiments Show That Radiation Can Modify (Cause Mutations) In the Molecular Structure Of DNA

95% of mutations are fatal or seriously injure the creature so that it is inferior, not superior.

Mutations might cause a different variation of the same species, but in no case have mutations been observed to produce a new species.

Scientist’ Accomplishments with Modifications or Repair of the DNA

Scientists have learned how to repair defective genes, but they have been unable to modify the DNA to create a superior species.

Scientists have developed better quality plants and animals by cross breeding but have never been able to produce a new species of animal or plant.

Scientists’ Failures in Experimenting with DNA

Scientists have continually experimented with radiation treatments to modify the DNA to produce a new species but have never succeeded.

Scientists have experimented with modifications of DNA of fruit flies by inserting multiple copies of an eye gene into fruit-fly embryos.

14 eyes appeared on the fruit fly’s wings, legs, and antennae.

Scientists produced a Frankenstein fruit fly who is grossly inferior to a normal fly.

THE FOSSIL RECORD: EVOLUTION OR CREATION?

Scientists Claim: The Fossil Record Proves Evolution

Many Biology text books leave the impression that only lower forms of life appear in the earliest strata of earth and that the higher forms of life gradually appear in successive strata in later ages of earth’s history.

The evidence actually shows both simple and advance animals suddenly appeared in the Cambrian Age, the first period when life is found.

The famous evolutionist, G.G. Simpson, writes, “All these phyla…begin in the Cambrian…. There is little logical order in time of appearance. The Arthropoda appear in the record as early as undoubted Protozoa, although by general consensus the Protozoa are the most primitive phylum and the Arthropoda the most advances.”

The Encyclopedia Britannica calls this phenomenon “an evolutionary explosion; Yet, it claims it “cannot be” and that life must have existed in Pre-Cambrian Ages, although no evidence of life appeared in earlier ages.

Simpson admits that the absence of Pre-Cambrian fossils is the “major mystery of the history of life.”

Advance and simple life existing side by side in the earliest age of earth confirms the Biblical description of creation, but contradicts evolution.

The Evolutionary Picture Presented by Scientists Would Be Miraculous if True.

Life on earth begins with a reptile, who miraculously evolved from a fish, which is cold blooded, has scales, with fins, no legs, no jaw, and lives in water.

Reptiles are: Cold blooded, have scales, 4 legs, and 6 bones in the lower jaw, live on land and have 18 more differences.

The reptile miraculously turned into a bird; birds are warm-blooded, with feathers, 2 wings and 2 legs, with a beak and 18 more differences.

If this reptile’s legs evolved into wings, in the interim he could neither walk nor fly and would have died before he could ever evolve into a bird.

The same reptile miraculously turned into a snake that has scales, but no legs and 18 other differences. In the process of losing his legs, the intermediate would have died before it produced a snake.

This same amazing reptile produced another kind of reptile who miraculously turned into a mouse, which is a mammal, who miraculously evolved into a horse, who incredibly evolved into a monkey.

Mammals are warm-blooded instead of cold-blooded, have fur or skin, give birth to the child out of birth track instead of hatching eggs, have 1 bone in the lower jaw (instead of 6) and have 18 more differences.

Every one of these miraculous creatures of evolution violated the definition of a species and contradicted the molecular law of Cell Reproduction that requires that the DNA of each animal have the same number of chromosomes of the parents.

None of these asserted evolutionary changes have ever been observed, nor have they been scientifically produced in the laboratory.

Missing Transitional Fossils Disprove Evolution and Confirms Creation

If evolution is true there should be hundreds of examples of transitional fossils between phyla of insects, spine creatures, and worms, and even more transitional fossils between mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and birds.

Simpson, admits, “Transitional types are not invariably lacking in the record. A multitude of them are known between species, many between genera, a few between classes, but none is true, between phyla.

Sir Fred Hoyle, who won the Nobel Prize in Astronomy, says, “The evolutionary record leaks like a sieve.”

If man descended from a chimp there should be thousands of fossils of half-chimp/ half-humans, but there are none.

The Absence of Living Intermediate Animals Disproves Evolution

If modern man evolved from a Chimp the intermediate half-chimpanzee/half-human would be superior in intellectual power to modern chimps, and thus millions of them should still be living in our modern world.

According to the Darwin’s theory of the Survival of the Fittest, these transitional beings should have survived better than the chimp. Yet not one of them survived. Why is the Chimp present in abundant numbers, but his superior evolutionary product is nowhere to be seen?

The Fossil Record Indicates Creation and Fixity of Species, Not Evolution

OUTDATED ARGUMENTS STILL USED BY SOME BIOLOGISTS

Embryology: Scientists Claim the Human Embryo Proves Past Evolution

Scientists once claimed that the embryo of a human passes through states of its evolutionary past from fish to animal, to human.

A human embryo first appears with a tail like that of a fish, then loses its tail and produces legs, supposedly demonstrating its past evolutionary history.

Study of the DNA shows that the design of a human is encoded so that its embryo will gradually develop into a full-grown human being.

The DNA in a human has no similarity whatsoever to the DNA in a fish.

Informed scientists no longer use this argument, but many freshman biology textbooks still teach that embryology is proof of evolution.

Vestigial Organs: No Proof of Evolution (Organs for which no useful function has been found)

1960 biology textbooks listed 200 vestigial structures of the human body, including the thyroid and pituitary glands, all as evidence of evolution.

By 1990 modern biology found useful functions for all 200.

Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest: Does not Create A New Species.

Natural selection produces micro-evolution.

Flowers can change colors but not into different plants.

Animals can change shapes and colors, but their species remains unchanged.

Survival of the Fittest also produces only micro-evolution, not macro-evolution.

Mutations can cause a plant to become sturdier, but not to turn into a different species of plant.

Moths of a certain color survive better than other moths because of environment, but don’t produce a different species.

Animals can become stronger and prettier based on survival of the fittest, but do not produce different species.

New discover nullifies Darwin’s main argument about the Giraffe.

Darwin claimed that Giraffes suffered successive famines and that only the ones with long necks survived.

Scientists have discovered that tiny blood pumps cover the entire length of the Giraffe’s neck. Without these pumps the heart could not pump the blood to the head and the Giraffe would die.

Thus, the DNA would have to be altered to add these blood pumps to the Giraffe’s growing neck to circulate the blood all the way to the Giraffe’s head and back to the heart.

Nothing natural could rewrite DNA to include these blood pumps; therefore, Giraffes have always had those blood pumps.

EVOLUTION: THE SIN OF IDOLATRY!

Man’s Homage to Mother Earth and Animals as His Maker is Idolatry.

Romans 1: 21 – 25 says that the “wise” (evolutionistic scientists and philosophers), “became fools” when they rejected God as Creator and worshiped animals as their makers.

Men who believe all life evolved naturally from the dust of the earth worship Mother Earth as their creator.

Men who believe reptiles evolved into chimps foolishly give credit to reptiles and chimps as their father and maker.

“Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” (1 Corinthians 1:20).

The Gospel of Christ Calls Men Out of Idolatry (Evolution), (Acts 14: 8 – 20).

CONCLUSION

The scientific evidence contradicts evolution. Only an omnipotent, omniscient creator can satisfy the scientific evidence.

Refutation of Geologists’ “Unitarianism” Method of Dating the Grand Canyon

37 Steven A. Austin, Grand Canyon, Monument to Catastrophe, 1994, p. 113.
38 New Encyclopedia Britannica,1991 Ed., 12.196.
39 New Encyclopedia Britannica,1991 Ed., 9.640-1.
40 Steven A. Austin, Grand Canyon, Monument to Catastrophe, 1994, p. 126.
41 Ibid.
42 Ibid.
43 Ibid.
44 Ibid., p. 128.
45 Henry Morris, Scientific Creationism, pp. 151-2.

46 New Brown Driver Briggs Gesenius Hebrew Aramaic English Lexicon, p. 134.
47 Ibid., p. 427.

48 Huse, Collapse of Evolution, pp. 22-23.
49 Bert Thompson, Essays in Apologetics, I.78; Collapse of Evolution, pp. 20-21.

50 Robert Gentry, Creation ‘s Tiny Mystery.
51 Huse, Collapse of Evolution, p. 25.
52 Ibid., p. 23.

• The sun is presently 864,950 miles in diameter and averages a distance of 92,957,000 miles from earth. 54 The sun would have to double its size (going back in time) 108 times to cover the present distance between the sun and earth: 92,957,000 divided by 864,950 = 108.
• Since the sun doubles in size each 100,000 years, the sun would have extended beyond the earth’s present position 10,800,000 years ago and the distant planets of our solar system would have burned up.
• Therefore, it is impossible that the earth could have existed even 100,000 years ago, much less 10,800,000 years ago.
• The scientific calculation of 5 billion years for the age of the earth is scientifically impossible and ridiculously absurd.
• A 6,000 to 7,500 year range for the earth’s age allows life to have comfortable temperatures for plants to grow and animals and humans to survive; thus, the scientific rate of the shrinkage of the sun is in complete harmony with the Biblical age of the solar system.

53 Bert Thompson, Essays in Apologetics, I.78-79.

B. Hydrogen Converted Into Helium55

• Hydrogen is constantly being converted into helium in space at the rate of 3 x 10 to the eleventh power grams per year.
• However, space is composed almost entirely of hydrogen, with the presence of only small amounts of helium.
• Since no source is known to produce hydrogen in space, most of the hydrogen should have turned into helium if the universe is really ten billion years old.

Because of this abundance of hydrogen and sparsity of helium, Sir Fred Hoyle, who won the Nobel Prize in Astronomy, concluded that the universe is only thousands of years old rather than billions of years.

• Helium enters the earth’s atmosphere by escaping from cracks in the earth’s crust from the decay of uranium and thorium at the rate of 3 x 10 to the 11 power grams per year.
• The amount of helium in earth’s atmosphere is 3.5 x 10 to the 15 power.
• At the rate helium is entering earth’s atmosphere, the earth should be about 10,000 years old.

A. Disintegration Rate of Comets 56

• Comets are gradually disintegrating from the heat of the sun.
• The rapid rate of disintegration indicates that their age could not be more than 10,000 years old.
• No comets would exist if our solar system were really five billion years old.

B.  Speed of Star Clusters 

• Star clusters contain thousands of stars swarming in different directions at enormous speeds.
• They are moving so fast that these clusters could not have held together for millions of years, much less billions of years.

CONCLUSION

Many other evidences indicate that the universe and the earth are not more than 10,000 years old and thus within the range of the biblical range of dates for Creation.

54 “The Sun,” New Encyclopedia Britannica, 1991 Ed., 11.387.
55 Bert Thompson, op. cit., I.79-80.
56 Huse, op. cit., p. 28.

THE BIBLICAL EXPLANATION OF THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE

“Six days you shall labor and do all your work. . . For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them” (Exodus 20:9, 11).