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.

We have a money raising program for missions at Park Plaza called “Sowing for Eternity”

This lesson will be on those who have ears…and … Hear… and the result of that “hearing” … is thinking… correct thinking… and of course the result of correct thinking… is the true sowing for eternity…

For you are what you think. Not just thinking about what you want to become but thinking of yourselves in terms of having already arrived.

For instance, you may think you want to be a preacher someday, change that to thinking “I am a preacher” … and maybe you merely need to improve your knowledge of the subject.

Proverbs 4:23 Keep your heart with all diligence, for out of it spring the issues of life.

One wise king wrote: “As [a person] thinks in his heart, so is he” (Proverbs 23:7 NKJV)

So back to thinking you are a preacher now… absolutely believe that, with absolute faith and no wavering.

You may remember last month I spoke of faith, how you must have faith, absolute faith if you expect God to hear you.

You must pray constantly, you must think upon these things, what you think is who you are, who you become.

I also mentioned being able to be a competent Christian Apologist, and how to properly “hear” the word, which is write the word, study, and meditate upon it.

I started out saying this lesson will be on those who have ears… listen.

I heard many times as a child that God gave us two ears and one mouth, so that we would listen twice as much as we talk. And, I remember that my grandmother used to tell me to keep quiet and let people think I’m stupid, or I could open my mouth and remove all doubt.

She wasn’t being mean, but it was her way of saying, be quiet and listen…. listen… to use my ears and learn, learn, and become wise… well, as most of you know it didn’t work all that well for me, however it was sound advice in principle…. But only if implemented.

And during my years in sales I learned listening was the most important part of selling or of a conversation…and that most of us only listen for about 3 seconds and then start thinking of our response, so we must train ourselves to listen, just listen, do not try to start coming up with responses, but focusing what is being said.

The second and third parts of the lesson is when we hear properly, we think properly and hearing properly means making sure we are “hearing” the right things and becoming what we think.

To find a path to a result, we must establish the desired result or recognize the result of taking a certain path.

I want to look at two views of this subject from a worldly view, and a Christian view.

I saw a movie once, called the “Secret”. I really do not remember much about it, except that it expounded upon the idea that rich people thought of themselves as rich before they ever made the first dime…they became what they thought.

The Secret, a best-selling 2006 self-help book written by Rhonda Byrne, based on that earlier film of the same name is based on the law of attraction and claims that positive thinking can create life-changing results such as increased happiness, health, and wealth.

Seeking God with all our hearts, minds, bodies, souls, and strength must be our true path and finding Him, Knowing Him, worshiping Him, and Obeying Him as our one and only goal in life; in other words, being a true disciple of Christ…. Leave wealth to the others, we don’t need it and shouldn’t even want it.

We must see ourselves this way…  think of ourselves this way…  keeping our thinking on the path that leads to eternal life in Heaven worshiping God for eternity as our true goal.

When I was a young man I had a pretty low opinion of myself, I didn’t even feel I was worthy to go to church even though I wanted to, I always thought those good and fine people would wonder what I was doing there, not realizing truly good and fine people would never think that, they would just be happy to see me there… I suffered from what the great sales trainer Zig Zigglar described as “stinkin thinkin”.

The law of attraction

Law of attraction (or New Thought) let me repeat…. new thought, you see we are talking about changing how we think….

The Secret speculates that the law of attraction is a natural law which determines the complete order of the universe and of our personal lives through the process of “like attracts like”.

The author claims that as we think and feel, a corresponding frequency is sent out into the universe which attracts back to us events and circumstances on that same frequency.

For example, if a person thinks angry thoughts and feels angry, the author claims that said person will attract back events and circumstances that cause them to feel more anger.

Conversely, if the person thinks and feels positively, they will attract back positive events and circumstances.

Proponents claim that desirable outcomes such as better health, wealth, and happiness can be attracted simply by changing one’s thoughts and feelings. For example, some proponents believe that using “the Secret” can cure cancer.

From my personal experience, up to about 15 or 20 years ago if someone asked me how I was doing, the new way of simply saying hello, I would answer something like “well as good as can be expected under the circumstances” and honestly it was  just my way of  using a form of “dry humor” to answer a “non-question” because I really didn’t believe then, nor  now, that people really want to know how you’re doing or feeling, it is just the new hello with icing on it.

By the way, next time you ask someone how their doing, try to make sure you mean it, the difference will surprise you…

Test it sometime when someone casually asks you how you’re doing by answering with a list of aches and pains…

A person stopped me once, about 20 years ago and said, hey you’re supposed to be a salesman, try saying “never better” when someone asks you how you’re doing, and so I tried it, and have been saying it ever since, because I found those words made me feel better,

Did you get that?

JUST SAYING THE WORDS IMPROVED MY PERSONAL HAPPINESS AND WELL BEING, and for most people hearing it makes them feel better,

AGAIN, I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU GET THAT,

JUST THE WORDS I SAY TO ANOTHER PERSON ALSO MAKES MANY PEOPLE FEEL BETTER THEMSELVES…

JUST SAYING THE WORDS CREATES A FEELING OF WELL BEING FOR ALL INVOLVED,

And in some cases, this opens up an opportunity to evangelize because they will test me on it… saying something like… really you’ve never been better in your whole life, and of course I will answer that it’s a spiritual thing, every day I am one day closer to heaven.

Now we just hit upon another “secret” to proper thinking and that is proper speaking… forcing yourselves to speak properly will have a reaction of proper thinking…this is also a biblical principle…

One of the things stated in the bible I have never been comfortable with because of my sense of humor, and what seems to me my endless chatter is that we are all held accountable for all idle words

Matthew 12:. 36 But I tell you that men will give an account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. 37 For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.”…

Play with that for a second, what we say comes from what we think, yet we can control what we think, by what we say…one empowers the other… first you must decide to say only right things… and the right thoughts will develop from that…and will return to even better words, or the right words coming more easily…

So, is there any scientific proof behind all this?

Lets go back to the “Secret” for a moment…

The book begins by introducing and explaining the mechanisms of the law of attraction, and then describes historical examples of its application and great men and women in history who have claimed to have harnessed its power.

The book describes the law as accounting for a magnetic power that is emitted through one’s thoughts. The power of thoughts is likened to the power in a transmission tower, which sends out a frequency to the universe and then returns the same frequency in a physical or elemental form.

Ask, believe, and receive. This creative process is based on a quote from the Bible”

and all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.” (Matthew 21:22)

Now I want again to point out a couple of things, I want to proceed with the idea that this is all true.

It is in Job 38:35 that we are told that lightening’s can be sent and will manifest themselves in speech when they arrive at their destination.

We now know that light, and radio waves are merely two forms of the same thing, electro-magnetic waves, therefore radio waves are merely a form of light, and can by the use of a radio transmitter be sent and will manifest themselves in speech when they arrive at their destination.

This is one of the evidences we use in Christian Apologetics, highlighting biblical scientific principles now proven by human scientific studies.

“One of the most powerful uses of gratitude can be incorporated in the Creative Process to turbo-charge what you want.”

Scripture tells us to be “thankful in everything, in all circumstances” (1 Thessalonians 5:18). When we find ourselves overwhelmed with burdens and worried about tomorrow, we can praise God for who he is and his promise to never leave us or forsake us. We have been blessed with the free gift of salvation and eternal life!

Psalm 100:4 Enter his gates with thanksgiving and his courts with praise; give thanks to him and praise his name

Psalm 107:1  1 Give thanks to the LORD, for he is good; his love endures forever.

The Secret highlights gratitude and visualization as the two most powerful processes to help make one’s desires manifest. It claims that being grateful both lifts your frequency higher and affirms that you believe you will receive your desire.

Visualization is said to help focus the mind to send out the clearest message to the universe.

God has created us with eyes in our hearts with which we can see, picture and visualize.

God wants to fill these eyes with His dreams, visions and images (Acts 2:17).

Jesus lived in pictures continuously (Jn. 5:19,20,30).

Jesus filled the eyes of His listeners by constantly teaching with parables (Matt. 13:34).

We are commanded to meditate on the Word, which involves prayerfully rolling it around in our hearts and minds. Since the Bible is full of picture stories, we will by necessity be picturing as we meditate upon Scripture (Josh. 1:8).

When we reason together with God, He uses imagery (Isa. 1:18).

Thinking of the words of God, visualizing my life following these words have changed by life, my thinking, and my words.

The final chapters of “The Secret” offer a more spiritual perspective on the law of attraction, and how it relates to one’s life and the world.

Is there any truth to “The Secret”? The simple answer is yes, for example, an idea of the law of attraction is that our physical health is determined by our thoughts and feelings.

It has been medically proven that stress and worry are harmful to the body, while joy and peace aid in the healing process.

The Bible agrees, “A cheerful heart is good medicine, but a crushed spirit dries up the bones” (Proverbs 17:22).

“A cheerful look brings joy to the heart, and good news gives health to the bones” (Proverbs 15:30).

As David was struggling with the guilt of his unconfessed, evil actions, he declared, “When I kept silent, my bones wasted away through my groaning all day long” (Psalm 32:3).

Our thoughts and feelings do have an impact on our physical well-being. However, this is due to how God designed our bodies.

When young I thought of myself in a completely different way than I have for the last 25 years.

At a family reunion, a couple of years ago, a cousin who I was very close with when young told me she would have never recognized me. I’ve also had a friend I hadn’t seen in many years tell me the same thing, somehow after returning to the church, thinking of myself in a new way, as a child of God literally changed me, it not only changed my direction in life, it not only changed my way of viewing the world and myself, it changed my physical appearance.

All this can get very deep, much deeper than we need to go or know, and there are many verses we simply can’t understand unless we add all this quantum physics to the mix, but again, we have no need for the deeper mechanisms, all we need to know is that it exists, and we are told to harness the power, whether we understand it or not and the scripture tells us how to harness it so that we change… into the creatures God had in mind for us…. But He gave us the choice to change or not to change.

So, I profess that we should think of ourselves as copies of Christ… denying all worldly attractions, resisting with all the strength we have of physical lusting, cravings, and coveting worldly properties.

I profess we should think of ourselves as copies of Christ, seeking God and His will in our lives with every ounce of human strength we possess, every thought, every action being made with the knowledge that we are in the presence of God, and we have no other desire in life except to please him.

I profess we should pick up our crosses daily and follow Him to Calvary,

Let’s keep our thoughts on things above and become Christ like, live our lives as if we are going to live forever… because we are

Recognize all that glitters for what it truly is… a trap of Satan… a snare to lure us into the depths of hell forever.

John Bunyan in the book Pilgrims Progress points out the deadliest place for Christians seeking God is Vanity Fair… in short… where all worldly passions can be found… all that glitters…

The worldly things are poison to our eternal life.

We must think of all these things for what they are; the deadliest poison of all; for it destroys not only your physical life, but your eternal life.

It’s all a snare.

So, let’s wrap up with an overview;

So, what is or should be our goal? What is the destination we seek? Is it not eternal life in heaven where there will no longer be pain, loss, death, and aging?

We must decide heaven is our goal, with nothing else as even a second choice as we travel the path.

We must know the way; we must know the map, which is God’s word.

We must think about and study God’s word.

We must think of ourselves, and visualize ourselves as a completely devoted child of God, no other goals in life, no other desires, no concern for this life in a worldly sense.

We must resist the deadliest poison, and accept only the bread of life, and the blood of the lamb as our nourishment.

And, I will see you there, and along the way… Philippians 4:8 “Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.”

And I want to add, not only think about them, but talk about them, visualize them, all with a grateful attitude.

And how will we know we have arrived? The Fruit of the Holy Spirit is a biblical term that sums up nine attributes of a Christian according to Paul the Apostle in his Letter to the Galatians: “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.”

So what we should think is in Philippians 4:8 and how we should view our selves is found in Galatians 5:22 – 23.

Thank you for your time and the lesson is yours, I pray you will keep your mind on things above, visualize yourselves as the children of God that you are, be grateful that you have found the true path to eternal life and let your speech be witnesses to that always.

I thought I would just take a moment here and share with you what the term Christian Apologetics means. Apologetics comes from the Greek word “apologia” which simply means to give a legal, or logical defense for your position. So, as commanded in 1 Peter 3:15 where we are told to be ready to give a reason for our faith, we need to be able to give a logical reason for believing.

That logical reasoning comes from demonstrating the bible is truly the inspired word of God, written by mere and mortal men. Men no different than you or I, (Females included). This is one of the great arguments, or defenses, that the Bible was written by men who were no different than any other man, and therefore as common men would not have been able to provide the information given, at the time it was given, which means it had to come from a higher intelligence than has ever been available to men, regardless of their IQ or abilities.

There are many methods of presenting Christian Apologetics, such as proving evolution (the only other option that could explain the existence of life) is impossible through mathematics, biology, etc. However, our goal is to present an apologia for our faith by presenting facts that cannot be argued.

Such as the scientific and medical facts found in the Bible long before modern or ancient scientist could have known about them.

Or, the predictions of future events which are now historical events, and those predictions which came to pass perfectly, as predicted, and not just a couple but as many as 2,500 and fulfilled so accurately that even Bible Scholars were suspicious that they were historical facts being passed off as prophesies until copies of these scriptures (namely the dead sea scrolls) were found that predated the fulfillment of the prophesies, proving they had to also come from a higher intelligence.

The Apologetics courses (called the 1 Peter 3:15 project) we teach at Dick Conner’s include the following:

1. A Video Tour concerning apologetics to “whet the appetite” of the prisoners.
2. The Truth Project, another video tour of teaching the truth (by focus on the family)
3. Amazin Facts of the Bible: a course designed to teach the bible was inspired by God
4. Apologetics I: a course teaching the person, work, death, and resurrection of Christ is all reliable Historically.
5. Christian Defenses, a wrap up course on how we can defend our faith
6. Christian Apologetic Evangelism, a future course in how to begin a conversation, and attract atheists, and agnostics, along with brothers who have fallen away in the prison system to accept the teachings of the Bible, and begin a journey to and eventually on the narrow path to salvation.

UPDATE:

We completed the Truth Project yesterday (April 17, 2017) and will begin the Amazin Facts course on April 24, 2017 (next Monday).

https://youtu.be/Cn8TGtBrGb8

https://youtu.be/qz77atYHTOA

The unity of the languages of the world proves the recent common origin of man. Prof. Max Muller, and other renowned linguists, declared that all languages are derived from one. This is abundantly proven by the similarity of roots and words, the grammatical construction and accidents, the correspondence in the order of their alphabets, etc. The words for father and mother similar in form, for example, are found in many languages in all the five great groups, the Aryan, the Semitic, the Hamitic the Turanian and Chinese groups, showing a common original language and proving the early existence of the home and civilization. The similarity of these and many other words in all of the great Aryan or Indo-European family of languages, spoken in all continents is common knowledge. Lord Avebury names 85 Hamitic languages in Africa in which the names of father and mother are similar; 29 non-Aryan languages in Asia and Europe, including Turkish, Tibetan, and many of the Turanian and Chinese groups; 5 in New Zealand and other Islands; 8 in Australia; and 20 spoken by American Indians. Answer: The French, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese are daughters of the Latin; Latin is a daughter of the Aryan; and the Aryan, together with the other sister languages is, no doubt, the daughter of the original language spoken by Noah and his immediate descendants. There can not well be more than 4 generations of languages, and the time since Noah is sufficient for the development of the 1000 languages and dialects. The American Indians have developed about 200 in 3,000 or 4,000 years. The life of a language roughly speaking, seems to range from 1000 to 3,000 years. The time since Noah is sufficient for the development of all the languages of the world. But if man has existed for 2,000,000 or 1,000,000 years, with a brain capacity ranging from 96% to normal, there would have been multiplied thousands of languages bearing little or no resemblance. There is not a trace of all these languages. They were never spoken because no one lived to speak them.

Many linguists insist that the original language of mankind consisted of a few short words, possibly not over 200, since many now use only about 300. The Hebrew has only about 500 root words of 3 letters ; the stagnant Chinese, 450; the Sanskrit, about the same. All the Semitic languages have tri-literal roots. As the tendency of all languages is to grow in the number and length of words, these consisting of a few small words must have been close to the original mother tongue. No language could have come down from the great antiquity required by evolution and have so few words. Johnson’s English Dictionary had 58000 words; modern Dictionaries over 300,000. The evidence points to the origin and unity of languages in the days of Noah, and proves the great antiquity of man an impossibility and his evolution a pitiful absurdity.

Have you ever driven in a fog that was so thick you couldn’t see the car in front of you? It was entirely too dangerous to drive:
Some People see scripture in this manner, with a mind full of fog.

Thomas Aquinas wrote: “There is within every soul a thirst for happiness and meaning

” Who Am I? Why am I here? Where am I going?

The objective of apologetic is not to convince a man unwittingly, or contrary to his will, to become a Christian.
“The objective, Clark Pinnock puts it, “strives at laying the evidence for the Christian Gospel before men in an intelligent fashion, so that they can make a meaningful commitment under the convicting power of the Holy Spirit. The heart cannot delight in what the mind rejects as false.” (Pinnock, SFYC,3)

We are not trying to win an argument – our goal is to glorify and magnify Jesus Christ – Not to “prove” God but provide a basis for Faith… Plowing the field making ready for the seed. Apologetic should never be used as a substitute for sharing the word but used in conjunction it is also a sign post or guide helping direct people back to the word of God

Statement by Josh McDowell:  “You may think it was the irrefutable evidence that brought me to Christ no, the evidence was only God’s way of getting his foot in the door of my life. What brought me to Christ was the realization that He loved me enough to die for me.
Page XXV (He Changed my Life)

The basic Apologetic thesis of these notes is: There is an infinite, all wise, all powerful, all loving God who has revealed Himself by means of the natural, the super natural in creation; in the nature of man, in the history of Israel and the church, in the pages of Holy Scripture, in the incarnation of God in Christ, and in the heart of the believer by the gospel”  (Ramm, PCE, 33)

J.N.D. Anderson records D.E. Jenkins remark “Christianity is based on indisputable facts (Anderson, WH, 10) “the facts backing the Christian claim are not a special kind of religious fact. They are the cognitive, informational facts upon which all historical, legal, and ordinary decisions are based.” (Pinnock, SFYC, 6,7)

Misconceptions: Blind Faith

Blind faith: One doesn’t have to commit intellectual suicide
to become a Christian.  “my heart cannot rejoice in what my mind rejects.” My heart and head were created to work and believe together in Harmony. Christ commanded us to “love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind” (Matt. 22:37)

When Jesus Christ and the apostles called upon a person to exercise faith, it was not a “blind faith” but rather and “intelligent faith.”
The apostle Paul said, “I know whom I have believed” (2Tim. 1:12)

(a personal observation: when a first century Jew used the word “know” it would have been Yeda, you’ve heard the expression Yeda, Yeda, Yeda. Well, that word is much deeper than our word know, you could not use that word unless you truly “knew” something, had experienced it personally. The example I like to give is this: I know in the English concept what a father is, but in the Jewish concept I do not know, because I didn’t have one [for the most part of my life]. So when Paul I know, he meant, he had experienced, had a “hands on” experience.)

“Faith in Christianity,” Paul Little justifiably writes, “is based on evidence. It is reasonable faith. Faith in the Christian sense goes beyond reason but not against it.” (Little, KWhyYB,30) Faith is the assurance of the heart in the adequacy of the evidence.

Often the Christian is accused of taking a blind “leap into the dark.” This idea often finds itself rooted in Kierkegaard.

For me, Christianity was not a “leap into the dark,” but rather “a step into the light.” I took the evidence that I could gather and place it on the scales. The scales tipped in favor of Christ as the Son of God, resurrected from the idea. The evidence so over-overwhelmingly leans toward Christ that when I became a Christian, I was “stepping into the light” rather than “leaping into the darkness.”

If I had been exercising “blind faith,” I would have rejected Jesus Christ and turned my back on all the evidence.

Be Careful. I am not saying that I proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus is the Son of God, What I did was investigate the evidence and weigh the pros and cons. The results showed that Christ mut be who He claimed to be, and I had to make a decision, which I did. the immediate reaction of many is, “You found what you wanted to find.” this is not the case. I confirmed through investigation what I wanted to refute. i set out to disprove Christianity. I had biases and prejudices not for Christ but contrary to Him.

Hume would say historical evidence is invalid because one cannot establish “absolute truth.” I was not looking for absolute truth but rather for “historical probability.”

“Without an objective criterion,” says John W. Montgomery, “one is at a loss to make a meaningful choice among a prioris. The resurrection provides a basis in historical probability for trying the Christian faith. Granted, the basis is only one of probability, not of certainty, but probability is the sole ground on which finite human beings can make any decisions. Only deductive logic and pure mathematics provide ‘apodictic certainty,’ and they do so because they stem from self-evident formal axioms (e.g., the tautology, if A then A) involving no matter of fact. the moment we enter the realm of fact, we must depend on probability; this may be unfortunate, but it is unavoidable.” (Montgomery, SP, 141)

At the conclusion of his four articles in His magazine, John W. Montgomery writes, concerning history and Christianity, that he has “tried to show that the weight of historical probability lies on the side of the validity of Jesus’ claim to be God incarnate, the Savior of man, and the coming Judge of the world. If probability does in fact support these claims (and can we really deny it, having studied the evidence?),  then we must act in behalf of them.” (Montgomery, HC, 19)

Misconception #2 “Just Be Sincere”

The Christian faith is an objective faith: therefore, it must have an object. The Christian concept of “saving” faith is a faith that establishes one’s relationship with Jesus Christ (the object), and is diametrically opposed to the average “philosophical” use of the term faith in the classroom today. We do not accept the cliche, “It doesn’t matter what you believe, as long as you believe it enough.”

(Allow me to add: Many a Christian today is operating on a “Subjective” faith. When asked why the believe they will answer “I know Jesus exists because I feel it/ Him in my heart.” We even sing a song about it, I serve a risen Savior!  We of course we should have the joy of salvation in our heart, but it is not an argument for our belief, for this can be used to argue any position from Atheist to Buddhist. Our faith is based upon solid historical facts, and that is an objective faith.  by the way I hope you enjoy this beautiful rendition of “I serve a risen Savior.” )

It’s not what we believe, it is in whom we believe.  The value of Christian faith is not in the one believing, but in the one who is believed in, it’s object.”

Josh is reminded of a Muslim who came to him and said very sincerely, ” I know many Muslims who have more faith in Mohammed than some Christians have in Christ.” He answered “That may well be true, but the Christian is “saved.” You see, it doesn’t matter how much faith you have, but rather who is the object of your faith; that is important from the Christian perspective of faith.”

https://youtu.be/Gr8Az3QQZdI

According to Carl Sagan, the universe (cosmos) “is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” However, the idea that the universe is all is not a scientific fact, but an assumption based upon materialistic naturalism. Since Carl Sagan’s death in 1996, new discoveries in physics and cosmology bring into questions Sagan’s assumption about the universe. Evidence shows that the constants of physics have been finely tuned to a degree not possible through human engineering. Five of the more finely tuned numbers are included in the table below.

Degree of fine tuning

Recent Studies have confirmed the fine tuning of the cosmological constant (also known as “dark energy”). This cosmological constant is a force that increases with the increasing size of the universe. First hypothesized by Albert Einstein, the cosmological constant was rejected by him, because of lack of real world data. However, recent supernova 1A data demonstrated the existence of a cosmological constant that probably made up for the lack of light and dark matter in the universe.2 However, the data was tentative, since there was some variability among observations. Recent cosmic microwave background (CMB) measurement not only demonstrate the existence of the cosmological constant, but the value of the constant. It turns out that the value of the cosmological constant exactly makes up for the lack of matter in the universe.3

The degree of fine-tuning is difficult to imagine. Dr. Hugh Ross gives an example of the least fine-tuned of the above four examples in his book, The Creator and the Cosmos, which is reproduced here:

One part in 1037 is such an incredibly sensitive balance that it is hard to visualize. The following analogy might help: Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billions of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 1037. (p. 115)

Journey Toward Creation DVDThe ripples in the universe from the original Big Bang event are detectable at one part in 100,000. If this factor were slightly smaller, the universe would exist only as a collection of gas – no planets, no life. If this factor were slightly larger, the universe would consist only of large black holes. Obviously, no life would be possible in such a universe.

Another finely tuned constant is the strong nuclear force (the force that holds atoms together). The Sun “burns” by fusing hydrogen (and higher elements) together. When the two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass of the hydrogen is converted into energy. If the amount of matter converted were slightly smaller—0.6% instead of 0.7%— a proton could not bond to a neutron, and the universe would consist only of hydrogen. With no heavy elements, there would be no rocky planets and no life. If the amount of matter converted were slightly larger—0.8%, fusion would happen so readily and rapidly that no hydrogen would have survived from the Big Bang. Again, there would be no solar systems and no life. The number must lie exactly between 0.6% and 0.8% (Martin Rees, Just Six Numbers).

Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe

1. strong nuclear force constant
   if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
   if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
2. weak nuclear force constant
   if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
   if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
3. gravitational force constant
   if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
   if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
4. electromagnetic force constant
   if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
   if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
5. ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
   if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
   if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
6. ratio of electron to proton mass
   if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
   if smaller: same as above
7. ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
   if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
   if smaller: same as above
8. expansion rate of the universe
   if larger: no galaxies would form
   if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed
9. entropy level of the universe
   if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
   if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
10. mass density of the universe
    if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
    if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements
11. velocity of light
    if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
12. age of the universe
    if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
    if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
13. initial uniformity of radiation
    if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
    if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
14. average distance between galaxies
    if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
    if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun’s orbit
15. density of galaxy cluster
    if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun’s orbit
    if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
16. average distance between stars
    if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
    if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
17. fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
    if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
    if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun
18. decay rate of protons
    if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
    if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life
19. 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
    if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
    if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
20. ground state energy level for 4He
    if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
    if smaller: same as above
21. decay rate of 8Be
    if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
    if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry
22. ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
    if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
    if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes
23. initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
    if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
    if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
24. polarity of the water molecule
    if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
    if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result
25. supernovae eruptions
    if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
    if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
26. white dwarf binaries
    if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
    if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
    if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
    if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
27. ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
    if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
    if smaller: no galaxies would form
28. number of effective dimensions in the early universe
    if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
    if smaller: same result
29. number of effective dimensions in the present universe
    if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
    if larger: same result
30. mass of the neutrino
    if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
    if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
31. big bang ripples
    if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
    if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form
32. size of the relativistic dilation factor
    if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
    if larger: same result
33. uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
    if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
    if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
34. cosmological constant
    if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars