Tuesday, May 15, 2012


I bought this book some time ago and recommend it to anyone who has discussions with evolutionists. The book uses an academic approach of logic to present the arguments that evolutionists must admit to God to have a basis for their arguments. I have copied this from the Creation/Revolution web site: http://creationrevolution.com

Its a bold title: The Ultimate Proof of Creation But is there such a thing? There are many books that contain seemingly powerful arguments for biblical creation. But is there an ultimate proof of creation? There is an argument for creation that is powerful, conclusive, and has no true rebuttal. As such, it is an irrefutable argument an ultimate proof of the Christian worldview biblical creation. Master the method outlined in the following chapters, and you will be able to defend Christianity against all opposition.
  • Learn how to apply the ultimate proof in dialogues with evolutionists, how to spot logical fallacies, and biblical examples of defending the faith
  • Discover the nature of scientific evidence and its proper role in the origins debate
  • Details how to address theistic evolution, day age creationism, and other compromised positions of biblical creationism
  • An exceptional book for pastors, ministry leaders, seminary attendees, and students of religion and philosophy
This book is a complete guide to defending the Christian faith, emphasizing the defense of the Genesis account of creation, built on techniques that have been developed over many years and presentations. They are not difficult to apply when you learn how to do it properly. Ready to move beyond the circular arguments? It is time to get to the real heart of the issue and rationally resolve the origins debate. It is time to discover The Ultimate Proof of Creation.
Paperback, 254 Pages

Saturday, May 12, 2012

I find this is an excellent explanation:

From: Norman W
I don’t know if the staff ever responds to these comments, but I have a question I have not seen addressed, yet. Since a singularity (a black hole) is by definition something from which nothing can escape, not even light, how can the largest singularity of all (the original compression of all matter in the universe) have an explosion of such great consequence that “everything” escapes from it? Is that not counter intuitive? How can “science” explain things “science” has said cannot happen? Are we to assume there is an explosive force greater than that contained in the stars?
Thank you Norman for your very intuitive question. I have been asking this question for years.
Let’s start with astronomy and physics. I’m not an astronomer or physicist, but I have friends who are and have talked to them in depth about how evolution defies the laws of physics. Some of them are PhD professors at various universities and some are or have been employed in very prominent government laboratories including Sandia and Los Alamos, both in New Mexico.
What they have explained to me over the years is that evolutionary cosmology has a huge problem at their very beginnings. We know that the laws of physics dictate that energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed. It can be utilized and altered, but all of the matter and energy in the universe today is the same as when the universe was formed. The question they really can’t answer is how did it come to be in the first place?
They believe that before the Big Bang, that all of the energy and matter in the entire universe was contained in a tiny compressed ball no larger than the head of a pin and somehow (they can’t explain the trigger) it exploded (Big Bang) and billions of years later here we are.
They can’t explain from where it all came from to begin with and how it exploded. They have no evidence of the tiny speck of all matter and energy that existed prior to the Big Bang.
The laws of astrophysics says that there has to be some kind of force or energy that holds the universe together. They theorize that it’s dark matter and dark energy, but they have no evidence that either exists. The only evidence they have is in their belief that it exists. Hence, what we are able to observe and measure says that there is no such thing as dark energy or dark matter, but they believe it anyway. And they call this science and the belief in God and creation a faith?
Another problem with the laws of physics has to do with how atoms and molecules react in a vacuum. According to known laws, all of the matter and energy released from the Big Bang should have continued to spread out from each other. Yet evolutionary theory requires that they actually coalesce together into larger balls of gas and eventually into stars and planets. This is opposite to what we know to happen in a vacuum and thus another violation of a law of science.
Now let’s turn to the laws of biology. I do have some knowledge in this area as I have a BS in wildlife and fisheries biology and a MS in biology with my thesis topic being population genetics. I’ve studied the molecular biology of the cell and everything I’ve learned tells me that evolution goes against the basic laws of biology.
One of the most basic tenets of biology is that life cannot arise from non-life, but evolution has to start with some form of spontaneous generation. They know and teach this basic law of biology in every school and college in the nation. Then they contradict themselves and teach that life actually did arise from non-life in the beginning and did so many times.
Evolution also defies the laws of information whose basic tenet is that information can only come from another source of information and ultimately from a source of intelligence. In simpler language, information such as DNA and RNA cannot just randomly form by itself. There had to have been a source of intelligence that created it in the first place and we all know that evolution is a mindless and unintelligent natural process.
Geological laws also present a problem for evolution. For nearly three centuries, the law of uniformitarianism has been used as one of the primary evidences for evolution and the age of the earth. The law states that the present is the key to the past and what we observe today took hundreds of millions of years of slow and gradual process to create. They look at some water systems and their annual flooding and layering deposits to extrapolate into millions of years of deposition all over the face of the earth. Yet, what we really see today are catastrophic events that have the most impact on the earth’s surface. We’ve observed how volcanic eruptions can completely change a landscape for many miles, including many feet of finely layered deposits and intricately carved canyons similar in structure to the Grand Canyon. We’ve seen how torrential rains and flash flooding have carved canyons out of solid rock.
So I guess in one aspect the present is the key to the past, only evolutionists don’t want to admit it in the same context that creationists do.
These are only a few examples of how the basic tenets of evolution go against the very laws of science that they know, accept and teach. The standard response I hear from them is that it happened then but cannot happen now. If that isn’t a blind faith, I don’t know what is. It’s definitely not science as they have no facts or evidence to prove any of their anti-laws of science tenets.
On the other hand, these laws of science are easily explained by using God’s Word. In the beginning, God created the earth, the universe and all of life. He also established a covenant with the physical laws of the universe and it is He who holds everything together (Hebrews 1).
So who really has a blind faith and whose origins belief is best supported by the laws of science and from what we observe?

Wednesday, May 9, 2012


I copied this from creation.com and found it interesting. Oreskes wrote a book complaining that the public doesn't accept all of the "scientific" facts supporting global warming due to human activity.

Does Oreskes have a point?
In the first place, I find it deeply ironic when the secular scientific community complains that their claims are not being accepted while they control every public school and university in the country and nearly every media outlet available.
If they can’t convince a captive audience, then maybe their views should be challenged more vehemently by scientists and the public alike.
Furthermore, there is good reason to question the conclusions of many popular scientific theories, like global warming. The claims of global warming propagandists are hardly as “established” as Oreskes would like us to believe. Here are a few reasons to be a “merchant of doubt”:
1. Only 50 years ago, the idea that human activity could affect global weather was laughed at. Back in the 1960’s, Reid Bryson, considered by many to be the father of modern climatology, “stood before the American Association for the Advancement of Science and presented a paper saying human activity could alter climate. ‘I was laughed off the platform for saying that,’ he told Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News.”[vi]
2. The amount of impact humans have on global temperature is negligible. According to Christopher C. Horner, Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, “While SUVs and power plants garner the most media and environmentalist attention, combustion emissions contribute only 2 percent of greenhouse gases currently keeping our atmosphere habitable.”[vii]
He goes on to say, ““Yes, carbon dioxide acts as a greenhouse gas…. Yes, burning coal, oil, and natural gas gives off CO2. But to what extent is human activity responsible for the current warming? Probably very little.”
3. Even the “facts” of global climate science can be manipulated to manufacture the desired public response. In A Pocket Guide to Global Warming, Answers in Genesis points out how hurricane data was “selectively sorted”:
“Even ‘facts’ need to be qualified. For example, NASA has reported that the average number of major hurricanes (categories 4 and 5) has doubled since 1970. But this is ‘selective data sorting.’
“When you calculate the average of all hurricanes, you find much less of an increase. In fact, the year 2007 saw a decrease in hurricanes. So NASA’s ‘fact’ may be true, but it is not the whole truth.”[viii]
4. The “Climategate” e-mails demonstrate the suspect nature of climate research and reporting. A host of e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit of the School of Environmental Science at the University of East Anglia were hacked and made public in the late 2000s. Some of these e-mails displayed a concerted effort to control data the public received.
Regarding these e-mails, George Avery of the Science and Public Policy Institute wrote, “Recent revelations of e-mails from the government-sponsored Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia reveal a pattern of data suppression, manipulation of results, and efforts to intimidate journal editors to suppress contradictory studies that indicate that scientific misconduct has been used intentionally to manipulate a social consensus to support the researchers’ advocacy of addressing a problem that may or may not exist.”[ix]
In spite of Oreskes’ claim, researchers and the public in general are wise to challenge the conclusions of scientists in areas such as climate change. The data itself and the documented tactics of some who advocate these positions give us all good reason.
If the scientific community is so concerned about its image, and the growing distrust of the average citizen to its claims, perhaps it should stop whining about the “doubters” and take a long hard look at itself.

[i] Jerome Cartillier, “Science under fire from ‘merchants’ of doubt’: US historian,” originally reported by AFP, accessed on Yahoo! News, accessed 30 March 2012; available at http://news.yahoo.com/science-under-fire-merchants-of-doubt-us-historian-190044894.html.
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Ibid.
[iv] Ibid.
[v] Ibid.
[vi] “The Faithful Heretic: A Wisconsin Icon Pursues Tough Questions,” Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News, May 2007.
[vii] Christopher C. Horner, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism, page. 66.
[viii] A Pocket Guide to Global Warming: A scientific and biblical expose of climate change, Answers in Genesis, 2008, page 18.
[ix] George Avery, Science & Public Policy Institute, “Scientific Misconduct: The Manipulation of Evidence for Political Advocacy in Health Care and Climate Policy,” Sept. 9 2010.

*Wes Moore is a conservative Christian author and speaker, and the founder of Evidence America, an apologetics and evangelism training ministry. Wes is the author of Forcefully Advancing, a book designed to equip the average Christian to engage the lost; The Maker, a futuristic apologetics novel; and The Spiritual Top 50, a non-fiction apologetics book designed to help Christians answer the questions their lost friends are asking. You can learn more about him at www.wesmoorenow.com and https://www.trustedapologetics.com/!

Tuesday, May 8, 2012


I can't believe the latest science story in the news. I claim that I wouldn't trust any scientist who believes in evolution because they either haven't looked at the data or have completely ignored common sense. But the latest scientific study that claims that dinosaur flatulence 200,000 years ago contributed to the warming trend attributed to that period. The argument is used to get rid of our cattle because they emit methane. I don't know about you but this is one of the lamest argument about global warming that I have heard. I always say that computer models reflect the input parameters and wonder who input this model and is anyone questioning it? The assumptions that go into any model will affect the output. I question the first assumption about the age of the earth. We have evidence from fossil tracks that men and dinosaurs lived at the same time and I would rather believe that it was only a few thousand years ago. I believe dinosaurs lived after the flood and appear in literature as dragons and through the years decreased in size and numbers. My horned toads look a lot like their ancient ancestors but have survived by becoming a lot smaller.

Wednesday, May 2, 2012


From 2 Peter: 5 "But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water.6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men."

I have been thinking about the "reserved for fire" comment. It occurs to me that within a few years every operation in the developed world will be controlled by a transistor chip. Even now a huge solar storm that would knock out every transitor would immediately shut down the modern world. Every automobile, electric operated store, gas station, power plant, and all operations would immediately be stopped. People would still be able to operate but would be immediately immobilized. Bicycles would offer transportation and those with horses would be better than most, but can you imagine living in New York City or Los Angeles when that happened. No TV, no phones, no Internet. And I think that God is in charge of the solar flares from the sun, as well as the earthquake, volcanos and rain as He told Job many years ago. So I can better understand Peter's prediction.