Jasmine71's Weblog

March 31, 2009

Tests To Determine If Someone Is Of God

—————–Try The Spirits——————

by David J. Stewart

1st John 4:1,2…

“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God.”

The word “try” means “to test.” Hence, we are to TEST the spirits. What does the Bible mean by “spirit.” All human beings are spirits. The Devil is a spirit. The demons are spirits. The angels are spirits. God Himself is a Spirit (John 4:24). We are spirits in a physical world. There is a great spiritual battle taking place. Ephesians 6:12 states, “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” Thus, every book, every movie, every writing, is produced by a spirit, the human spirit. Ephesians 2:2 teaches that Satan has influence upon the unsaved spirit (person), “Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience.” So we see that there are different spirits at work. 1st John 4:13, “Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.” A clear distinction should be made between “the spirit (Satan) that now worketh in the children of disobedience,” and the Holy Spirit of God.

1st John 4:2 is Only a Test Starting Point

It is important to understand that the test specified in 1st John 4:2 is only a starting point, not a conclusive test. We are told that “Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God.” Obviously this cannot be a final test because many false religions believe that Jesus is the Christ, i.e., the Saviour. Every Catholic believes that Jesus is the Christ; BUT, they are all bound for Hell because they are trusting in their good works and the Church to save them. Ephesians 2:8,9 and Titus 3:5 plainly teach that good works CANNOT merit anyone salvation. Seventh-Day Adventists believe that Jesus is the Christ; BUT, they teach works salvation and that Christ’s work of redemption still isn’t completed. So it’s important to test the spirits with the ENTIRE Word of God, not just one simple test. God is simply providing us with a starting point in 1st John 4:1,2. One billion Muslims would fail this first test, because they don’t believe Jesus died on the cross. The Koran states that Jesus was kidnapped, and another crucified in His place. Muslims also teach that God has NO Son. 1st John 2:22 calls them LIARS and ANTI-Christs for denying that Jesus is the Christ.

There are Other Tests Required to Determine if Someone is of God or Satan

The tests we should give to a person’s faith, based upon the Word of God, to determine whether or not they are a legitimate Christian, is:

  1. Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to Heaven? (John 14:6)
  2. Do they believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ? (Isaiah 7:14)
  3. Do they believe that Jesus is God Almighty? (Isaiah 9:6; John 1:1-3,14; 10:33, 1st Timothy 3:16; Colossians 2:9; Revelation 1:8)
  4. Do they believe that Jesus is the Son of God? (John 3:16)
  5. Do they believe that Jesus died upon the cross? (John 19:23; Hebrews 12:2)
  6. Do they believe that Jesus was buried, and rose again physically after three days? (1st Corinthians 15:1-4)
  7. Do they believe that Jesus ascended bodily into Heaven after His resurrection? (Acts 1:9)
  8. Do they believe that it is Jesus’ blood which takes our sins away, and not just the death of Christ? (Colossians 1:14; 1st John 1:7; Revelation 7:14)
  9. Do they believe in the Godhead (Trinity): God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit? (Romans 1:20; Matthew 28:19,20)
  10. Do they believe that Jesus is a member of the Godhead, equal in every capacity? (Colossians 2:9)
  11. Do they believe that Jesus is perfect, never having sinned even once? (2nd Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15)
  12. Do they believe that Jesus existed in Preexistent form, before He came to the earth? (John 8:58; Revelation 1:8)
  13. Do they believe in the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ upon the cross, Who died in our place? (1st Peter 2:21)
  14. Do they believe that Hell is a literal place that burns with fire, to punish all Christ-rejecters? (2nd Thessalonians 1:8; Revelation 20:8,11-15;)
  15. Do they believe in a literal Heaven, for the saved to go to? (John 14:1,2; 2nd Corinthians 5:8)
  16. Do they believe that Jesus Christ is the Creator of the universe? (John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:16)
  17. Do they believe that Jesus Christ always existed? (Revelation 1:8; John 5:58; Hebrews 7:3)
  18. Is Christ’s work of atonement completely finished? (Hebrews 9:26)

The answer to every question above should be a confident “YES!”

The answer to every question below should be a confident “NO!”

  1. Does a person have to be baptized to go to Heaven? (1st Corinthians 1:17; Acts 16:31; Romans 10:13)
  2. Do you have to do any good works to go to Heaven? (Romans 3:20; Ephesians 2:8,9; Titus 3:5)
  3. Do you have to join a church to go to Heaven? (Ephesians 2:8,9; Titus 3:5; Psalm 118:8)
  4. Do you have to confess your sins to a priest or a minister to go to Heaven? (1st Timothy 2:5)
  5. Do you have to keep the sacraments to go to Heaven? (Ephesians 2:8,9; Titus 3:5; Romans 4:5)
  6. Do you have to endure or persevere to the end of life to be saved? (Ephesians 2:8,9; Titus 3:5; Romans 5:15; Romans 6:23; Romans 4:5)
  7. Do you have to earn your way to Heaven? (Romans 3:20; Ephesians 2:8,9; Titus 3:5)
  8. Do you have to pray the Rosary to go to Heaven? (Ephesians 2:8,9; Titus 3:5; Matthew 6:7)
  9. Do you have to recognize the Virgin Mary to be saved? (1st Timothy 2:5; Exodus 20:4,5)
  10. Do you have to be religious to go to Heaven? (Ephesians 2:8,9; Titus 3:5; Mark 7:6-13)

There are other questions as well; but, these are the main questions. You’ll find that 98% of the people in this world DON’T pass the above tests. Please do not misunderstand this article. I’m not saying we should rudely interrogate people concerning their beliefs. What I am saying is that if someone’s belief’s don’t line up with the Word of God concerning salvation, then they’re not saved. No one who is trusting in their baptism to save them will go to Heaven. No one who believes that Christ’s blood is insignificant is saved. No one who denies the virgin birth, or Christ’s sinlessness is saved. These are all fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. There is MUCH deception today, many false Christs, and many liars. The only true way of knowing whether they are of God or not is to scrutinize their teachings with the Light of God’s Word. No one who prays the Rosary and trusts Mary will ever go to Heaven. No way! The Bible is clear that such repetitious prayers are sinful (Matthew 6:7). Bowing to any statue is a horrible sin (Exodus 20:4,5). If you’ll study the Word of God, instead of following men, then you CANNOT be deceived.

Many False Religions Teach the Basic Gospel

Many professed “Christian” organizations today, put forth a basic Gospel message to the public; BUT, they would fail the above tests. Many false religions are based upon the Gospel. It’s true. The Devil always starts with the truth when he wants to create a lie (Romans 1:25; 2nd Corinthians 11:14), then he perverts it. By adding and removing from the truth, it is corrupted. For Example: Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that Jesus died, was buried, and rose again. However, they deny the deity of Christ, the Godhead, the Holy Spirit, and so many other fundamental Bible doctrines. They are a false religion, children of the Devil. Do you see why it is so important to preach the Gospel, while simultaneously EXPOSING Satan’s works of darkness (Ephesians 5:11)? Yes, we should preach the Gospel; BUT, many false religions also do that, so we need to give people additional information from the Bible. We need to teach people that good works cannot merit salvation, and that baptism is not required to be saved. We must tell them about the lies of Roman Catholicism, and the deadly deception of Seventh-Day Adventism. We must warn them about imposters like Oprah Winfrey, who denies Jesus Christ is the only way to Heaven.

We should warn those who need to be warned. If I know that someone is following a certain false religion, like Catholicism, then I’ll make sure to warn them that the sacraments are evil. They need to know! Do you realize that every Catholic believes the basic Gospel? They believe that Jesus’ blood washes our sins away! BUT, they are also trusting the virgin Mary (Our Lady of Fatima), the Rosary, the Pope, the priestly confessional booth, the Church, the seven sacraments, and their good works to save them one day. They’re going to burn in the Lake of Fire if they don’t get saved. Salvation is found ONLY in Jesus Christ, by faith alone in Christ! If you add anything to your faith, then it is NO faith at all, and you will go to Hell. It is for this very reason that I expose so many CCM (contemporary Christian music) artists today. They all speak a vague message, barely even the basic Gospel; while the world plunges into the abyss of Hell. And they say they care about people? No they don’t! They’re more interested in making money.

It’s time for Christians to start proclaiming the Truth of God’s Word. The Gospel is being exploited by many false religions to deceive the ignorant and unlearned. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is His death, burial, and resurrection; BUT, the “good news” also teaches that salvation is a FREE GIFT which absolutely cannot be merited in any way (Romans 5:15; 11:6; Ephesians 2:8,9). So the good news of Christ is no good news at all when you REQUIRE people to get baptized, join a church, keep the Sabbath, make a commitment, walk a church isle, perform good works, confess sins to a priest, tithe, persevere to the end, or partake of sacraments. The good news (Gospel) is that you DON’T have to do anything to be saved, just place your faith in Jesus Christ as your personal Saviour to forgive your sins. Jesus already did everything for us at Calvary, all we need to do is rest in His finished work of redemption. It’s as simple as this: We are sinners, and Jesus is the Saviour.

Again, If you’ll study the Word of God, instead of following men, then you CANNOT be deceived.



March 23, 2009

Debunking Evolution In Layman’s Terms

Debunking Evolution:
problems, errors, and lies exposed,
in plain language for non-scientists

“Evolution” mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary.  Variation is the real part.  The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation.  Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool for finches.  Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species.  What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of.  Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out.  And as one characteristic increases, others diminish.  But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures.  This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in.  It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.

Do these big changes really happen?  Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly.  A human generation takes about 20 years from birth to parenthood.  They say it took tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands.  We do not have these problems with bacteria.  A new generation of bacteria grows in as short as 12 minutes or up to 24 hours or more, depending on the type of bacteria and the environment, but typically 20 minutes to a few hours.  There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria).  They exist in just about any environment: heat, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc.  There is much variation in bacteria.  There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones10).  But they never turn into anything new.  They always remain bacteria. Fruit flies are much more complex than already complex single-cell bacteria.  Scientists like to study them because a generation (from egg to adult) takes only 9 days.  In the lab, fruit flies are studied under every conceivable condition.  There is much variation in fruit flies.  There are many mutations.  But they never turn into anything new.  They always remain fruit flies. Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.

This is how the imaginary part is supposed to happen: On rare occasions a mutation in DNA improves a creature’s ability to survive, so it is more likely to reproduce (natural selection).  That is evolution’s only tool for making new creatures.  It might even work if it took just one gene to make and control one part.  But parts of living creatures are constructed of intricate components with connections that all need to be in place for the thing to work, controlled by many genes that have to act in the proper sequence.  Natural selection would not choose parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work. Thus all the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen at the same time by pure chance.  That is physically impossible.  To illustrate just how impossible it is, imagine this: on the ground are all the materials needed to build a house (nails, boards, shingles, windows, etc.).  We tie a hammer to the wagging tail of a dog and let him wander about the work site for as long as you please, even millions of years.  The swinging hammer on the dog is as likely to build a house as mutation-natural selection is to make a single new working part in an animal, let alone a new creature.

Only mutations in the reproductive (germ) cells of an animal or plant would be passed on.  Mutations in the eye or skin of an animal would not matter.  Mutations in DNA happen fairly often, but most are repaired or destroyed by mechanisms in animals and plants.  All known mutations in animal and plant germ cells are neutral, harmful, or fatal.  But evolutionists are eternally optimistic.  They believe that millions of beneficial mutations built every type of creature that ever existed.

There are two versions of evolution.  The first (neo-Darwinism) proposed that many tiny changes made new creatures.  They could not find these tiny changes between one type of creature and another in the fossil record, so a few evolutionists proposed instead that change occurred by occasional leaps (punctuated equilibrium).  Each hypothetical beneficial mutation could only make a slight change.  Any more than that would be so disruptive as to cause death.  So punctuated equilibrium is not really one leap at a time.  It envisions a lot of slight changes over thousands of years, then nothing happens for millions of years.  Evolutionists say with a straight face that no fossils have been found from a leap because thousands of years is too fast in the billions of years of “geologic time” to leave any.  On the other hand, without fossils there is no evidence that any leaps ever happened, and of course there is no evidence that leaps or gradual changes are happening today in any of the millions of species that still exist.

Evolution is all about constant change, whether gradual or in leaps.  Consider a cloud in the sky: it is constantly changing shape due to natural forces.  It might look like, say, a rabbit now, and a few minutes later appear to be, say, a horse.  In between, the whole mass is shifting about.  In a few more minutes it may look like a bird.  The problem for evolution is that we never see the shifting between shapes in the fossil record.  All fossils are of complete animals and plants, not works in progress “under construction”. That is why we can give each distinct plant or animal a name.  If evolution’s continuous morphing were really going on, every fossil would show change underway throughout the creature, with parts in various stages of completion.  For every successful change there should be many more that lead to nothing.  The whole process is random trial and error, without direction.  So every plant and animal, living or fossil, should be covered inside and out with useless growths and have parts under construction.  It is a grotesque image, and just what the theory of evolution really predicts. Even Charles Darwin had a glimpse of the problem in his day.  He wrote in his book The Origin of Species: “The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous.  Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?  Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” The more fossils that are found, the better sense we have of what lived in the past.  Since Darwin’s day, the number of fossils that have been collected has grown tremendously, so we now have a pretty accurate picture.  The gradual morphing of one type of creature to another that evolution predicts is nowhere to be found.  There should have been millions of transitional creatures if evolution were true.  In the “tree of life” that evolutionists have dreamed up, gaps in the fossil record are especially huge between single-cell creatures, complex invertebrates (such as snails, jellyfish, trilobites, clams, and sponges), and what evolutionists claim were the first vertebrates, fish.  In fact, there are no fossil ancestors at all for complex invertebrates or fish.  That alone is fatal to the theory of evolution.  The fossil record shows that evolution never happened.

The platypus has a duck-like bill, swims with webbed feet, and lays eggs.  Yet nobody calls it a transitional creature between mammals and ducks.
Archaeopteryx has long been held up as the great example of a transitional creature, appearing to be part dinosaur and part bird.  However, it is a fully formed, complete animal with no half-finished components or useless growths.  That is also the case for the other birds in the evolutionary tree.  Evolutionists just placed some of the many living and extinct species next to each other to make the bird series.

The same is true for the famous horse series.  Each of the supposed ancestors is a complete animal.  They are not full of failed growths and there are no parts under construction.  There are many more differences between each type of animal than their size and the number of toes.  Every change in structure, function, and process would have had to develop through random trial-and-error if evolution were true, but no transitional forms have been found.  The fossils have not caught any changes in the midst of being created, even though they should have occurred over long periods of time.  In the late 1800’s, evolutionists simply placed living and extinct species next to each other to make the horse series.  However, evolutionists no longer believe there was the direct ancestry (orthogenesis) shown in this chart…
Evolutionists now imagine it to be this branching bush.  Many of the supposed ancestors apparently lived at the same time, especially after Mesohippus.  It is doubtful that Hyracotherium (formerly Eohippus) has any connection to horses.  So the progression of toes is an illusion that was useful when the theory of evolution was first being sold to the public.  Several hundred species are extinct; only one genus, Equus, survives.

New discoveries are bringing down the whole notion of a “tree of life”, as passages from an article in the mainstream magazine New Scientist show:13 “The tree-of-life concept was absolutely central to Darwin’s thinking, equal in importance to natural selection, according to biologist W. Ford Doolittle of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.  Without it the theory of evolution would never have happened.”  “For much of the past 150 years, biology has largely concerned itself with filling in the details of the tree.  ‘For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life,’ says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France.  A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach.”

“But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence.  Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded.  ‘We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality,’ says Bapteste.  That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change.”  “The problems began in the early 1990s when it became possible to sequence actual bacterial and archaeal genes”.  “As more and more genes were sequenced, it became clear that the patterns of relatedness could only be explained if bacteria and archaea were routinely swapping genetic material with other species – often across huge taxonomic distances”.  ” ‘There’s promiscuous exchange of genetic information across diverse groups,’ says Michael Rose, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Irvine.”  “As early as 1993, some were proposing that for bacteria and archaea the tree of life was more like a web.  In 1999, Doolittle made the provocative claim that ‘the history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree’.8 ‘The tree of life is not something that exists in nature, it’s a way that humans classify nature,’ he says.”

“Recent research suggests that the evolution of animals and plants isn’t exactly tree-like either.”  “A team at the University of Texas at Arlington found a peculiar chunk of DNA in the genomes of eight animals – the mouse, rat, bushbaby, little brown bat, tenrec, opossum, anole lizard and African clawed frog – but not in 25 others, including humans, elephants, chickens and fish.  This patchy distribution suggests that the sequence must have entered each genome independently by horizontal transfer.”19 “HGT [horizontal gene transfer] has been documented in insects, fish and plants, and a few years ago a piece of snake DNA was found in cows.”  “Biologist Michael Syvanen of the University of California, Davis… compared 2000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes.  In theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals.  He failed.”

“The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories.”  ” ‘We’ve just annihilated the tree of life.  It’s not a tree any more, it’s a different topology entirely,’ says Syvanen.”  “It is clear that the Darwinian tree is no longer an adequate description of how evolution in general works.”  “Rose goes even further.  ‘The tree of life is politely buried, we all know that,’ he says.  ‘What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.’  Biology is vastly more complex than we thought, he says.”  ” ‘The tree of life was useful,’ says Bapteste.  ‘It helped us to understand that evolution was real.  But now we know more about evolution, it’s time to move on.’ “13

This is huge.  Professional evolutionists spend most of their time adjusting their “tree of life”.  They have fun thinking how one type of creature “developed” into another type, how abilities “emerged” here and there, but that is just playing at science.  This article shows that, while they still cling to their belief in evolution, the truth is becoming inescapable to the few evolutionists who dare to look at the facts: Darwin was wrong; microbes, insects, plants, and animals do not fit a “tree of life” with linear descent. There is no pattern to their similarities and differences because each one is a uniquely designed, complete creature.

When researchers began “reading” the amino acids in proteins in the 1960’s, evolutionists expected that proteins such as hemoglobin or cytochrome C, common to many types of creatures, would be more alike for creatures close to each other on the evolutionist’s “tree of life”, and more unlike for creatures farther apart on the “tree of life”.  Instead, this comparative biochemistry found that the protein sequences were just as different between creatures near each other on the tree as between those far apart, using percent of sequence differences.  We find lots of variation in these proteins, but no evolutionary progression.

An old evolution myth still hanging around is the notion that things that look like gill-slits, tails, etc. in developing human embryos show the embryo repeating all the stages of evolution.  In 1866, Ernst Haeckel proposed his “biogenitic law” (not to be confused with the law of biogenesis that says life only comes from life).  His idea was that growing vertebrate embryos went through all the forms of their supposed evolutionary ancestors (“ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”).  He published drawings comparing growing embryos of a number of animals such as the pig, cat, salamander, etc. to growing human embryos.  The similarities that he said he found helped persuade people to believe the theory of evolution.  Scientists eventually discovered enough about embryology to quietly discard the “biogenetic law”, but it was not until a careful photographic study of growing vertebrate embryos was conducted in 1997 that Haeckel’s deceit was fully revealed.  They found that his drawings were so far from reality that they could not have been done from the actual embryos.21 He must have faked them.

The theory of Evolution violates two laws of science.  The Second Law of Thermodynamics (law of increasing entropy) says that things which start out concentrated together spread out over time.  If you heat one room in a house, then open the door to that room, eventually the temperature in the whole house evens out (reaches equilibrium).  Knowing how far this evening-out has progressed at any point in time tells you the entropy.  Entropy can measure the loss of a system’s ability to do work.  Entropy is also a measure of disorder, and that is where evolution theory hits an impenetrable wall.  Natural processes proceed in only one direction, toward equilibrium and disorder. Things fall apart over time, they do not get more organized.  We can overcome this by making a machine and adding energy, but the Second Law prevents such a machine from assembling spontaneously from raw materials.  The Law of Biogenesis was established by Louis Pasteur three years after Darwin’s book was published, and simply says that life only comes from life.  Living cells divide to make new cells, and fertilized eggs and seeds develop into animals and plants, but chemicals never fall together and life appears.  Evolutionists often call certain chemicals “the building blocks of life”, giving people the false impression that you just stack the building blocks together and you get life.  No one has ever done that, including the famous 1953 Miller/Urey experiment where all they got were clumps of amino acids.  Many people mistakenly think scientists have made life from chemicals in the lab, but they have not (though many have tried very hard).  If one were to succeed, you would know about it.  He would get every science award there is, be all over the news, and have movies, books, buildings, statues, and schools dedicated to him, so desperate are evolutionists on this matter.  For something to be a law of science, it can never be found to have been violated, even once, over thousands of trials.  No exceptions.  A theory that violates two laws of science is in big trouble.

When confronted with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, evolutionists usually use two tricks to try to escape.  The first is to state that “it only applies to closed systems, and biological creatures are open systems, so it doesn’t affect evolution.”  The fact is that the Second Law applies to all systems, open or closed, and to all actions and chemical reactions, from molecules to galaxies.  The words “except for…” are not in this universal law. A thermodynamics system is simply any part of the universe we want to study.  If we are doing an experiment in a bottle, the inside of the bottle is our system and the bottle itself is the “walls” of the system.  There are only 3 kinds of systems: if no energy or matter can pass through the walls, it is an isolated system; if energy can pass through but matter cannot, it is a closed system; if both energy and matter can pass through the walls, it is an open system.  Now, it is true that the laws of thermodynamics and entropy are defined in terms of isolated systems, because that is the simplest way to express them.  However, experts who write textbooks on the subject are quick to say that isolated systems do not occur in nature.  For practical applications, a procedure called the Legendre Transform mathematically converts entropy to a variable called Gibbs free energy that is useful for working with real-world systems.  Most natural systems are open, but it is convenient to model them as closed.  For example, even though a bacterium is an open system, modeling it as a closed system makes it easier to understand chemical reactions in it.2,7 You are an open system. You eat food (which comes from outside yourself) and your body survives and grows.  Evolutionists believe that all we need is an open system with sufficient energy flowing into it for evolution to succeed.  If that were so, you could just stand right behind a jet engine as the aircraft prepares for takeoff, absorb that blast of energy, and evolve to a higher life form.  In reality, of course, you would be incinerated because absorbing energy without a mechanism to convert it to a useful form and employ it is destructive or useless.  The mechanism must be very specific.  Sticking food in your ear will not work; it must go into your mouth and through the digestive system.  And the mechanism must be in place and functioning first, before energy is added, or the energy is wasted.  The “open system” ploy is just an attempt to avoid dealing with the Second Law because the Law prohibits any functioning biological mechanism from falling together by pure chance, without assistance or plan, using only the properties of matter.

The second trick they use is to say that “when you freeze water, the disordered molecules become beautifully ordered ice crystals or snowflakes.  If water can bypass the Second Law and organize its molecules by a natural process, why not the chemicals of life?”  At room temperature, water molecules are bouncing off each other and you have water.  When you take away heat and they freeze, water molecules stick to each other with weak molecular bonds, forming ice crystals and snowflakes because of the shape of the H2O molecule.  The same thing happens if you put a bunch of weak magnets in a jar and shake it.  The magnets bounce around.  When you stop, the magnets stick together.  They are at a lower energy level.  There is order, yet no complexity – just a simple repetitive structure that does not do anything.  The Second Law is not bypassed or violated.  But guess what. Amino acid molecules that form proteins, and nucleotide molecules that form DNA and RNA resist combining at any temperature.  To combine, they need the help of mechanisms in a living cell or a biochemist in an organic chemistry laboratory.11 It means that nothing happens in the primeval soup, the pond of chemicals where evolutionists believe life began.  DNA and RNA dissolve in water24, so there could not even be water in the primeval soup.  DNA is made of only right-handed versions of nucleotides, while proteins are made of only left-handed versions of amino acids.  Yet any random chemical reaction that produced nucleotides or amino acids would make an equal mix of left and right-handed versions of each. Even if the thousands of nucleotides or amino acids needed to form individual DNA or protein molecules were able to combine from this mix, they would be a jumble of left and right-handed versions that could not function at all. Ilya Prigogene coauthored a paper in 1972 that says in an open “system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures.  This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals… Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures.”20 Prigogene won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1977 for research on dissipative structures, such as tornados, for contributions to nonequilibrium thermodynamics, and for bridging the gap between biology and other sciences.  Evolutionists wrongly claim he won for showing how thermodynamics could explain the formation of organized systems, from fluctuations in chaos, that lead to the origin of life.  They thought he was their hero.  Over thirty years later, nothing has come of it.  There is no escape from the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  It prohibits the spontaneous origin of life and the progression from microbes to man.

Even a single cell is not simple.  In Darwin’s day researchers looked at cells under the microscope and saw little balloons filled with goo they called protoplasm, so they thought cells were simple forms of life.  150 years later we know that there are many types of cells, and each cell is a little city at work.  The smallest known genome (Mycoplasma genitalium) has 482 genes.12 The minimum possible for an organism to survive is probably 200 to 300 genes.  Most bacteria have 1000 to 4000 genes.  A popular textbook on the cell1 is 1600 pages long and weighs 7 pounds.  Everything about the cell is stunningly complex.  Plants and animals contain a great variety of cells.  The human body has about 210 different types of cells.

Cells are made of proteins, and everything that goes on in a creature involves proteins interacting with each other.  Proteins are generally 50 to 2000 amino acids long; a typical one has about 300 amino acids.1 A protein is not just a long ribbon of amino acids strung together from the DNA pattern.  It folds itself into a 3D structure.

Diagram of a folded protein Origami

The temperature and chemical concentrations must be right for it to fold correctly, and many proteins get help from special proteins called “molecular chaperones”.  Chaperones can keep proteins separated from each other while they are folding, prevent mistakes in folding, and even unfold mistakes to give the protein a second chance to get it right.  After helping one protein fold, a chaperone will go help another one fold.


A chaperone protein (bottom, yellow) called SecB guides the folding of another protein (transparent)
in this artist’s illustration.” –Science News, December 1, 2007, Vol. 172, p. 342

Making and folding proteins goes on continuously throughout the body.  Misfolding can lead to more than proteins that don’t work.  In humans, bunches of them (aggregates) can lead to diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Huntington’s, or sickle cell.  “Proteins are so precisely built that the change of even a few atoms in one amino acid can sometimes disrupt the structure of the whole molecule so severely that all function is lost.”1 All proteins stick (bind) to other molecules.  But each can bind to only a few of the thousands it encounters.  “An average protein in a human cell may interact with somewhere between 5 and 15 different partners.”1 Their shapes fit each other like a hand in a glove. “Proteins can form enormously sophisticated chemical devices.”  “The most impressive tasks are carried out by large protein assemblies formed from many protein molecules.”  “Each of the central processes in a cell… is catalyzed by a highly coordinated, linked set of 10 or more proteins.”1 The parts of a cell where proteins are made (ribosomes) are themselves made of many different proteins.  “The complexity of living organisms is staggering.”1 In the face of this breathtaking complexity, evolutionists have tried to find the fewest things necessary for a cell to function.  They came up with 15 general categories (such as energy production and conversion, cell division, etc.).  Each category requires many proteins.  All have to be in place and working together or the cell is wrecked.

So evolutionists have to believe that for each protein, pure chance laid out long strings of amino acids that fold themselves into the exact shapes needed to interact with other specialized proteins and, where needed, get help from chaperone proteins which themselves appeared by chance.  The necessary proteins cannot be invented one at a time.  Either they are all there, ready to work together, or nothing happens and they disintegrate.  Yet even if it could design proteins, mutation-natural selection would only work on one at a time sporadically over many years. Considering just the complexity of proteins, the notion of creating them with mutation-natural selection is as silly as asking someone to build a television set with a spoon and a toothbrush.  If Darwin had known what we have learned about proteins, he probably would have abandoned the theory of evolution.

Do evolutionists admit defeat?  Never!  They temporarily set aside natural selection, saying all mutations in DNA needed to build a complicated new part quietly accumulate in the population because by themselves each one is neutral, neither beneficial nor harmful.  Then, millions of years later, all are in place.  The new part starts working, natural selection chooses it, and the improved creature is off to the races.  This scenario exists only in the mind of the evolutionist.  As pointed out earlier, we do not find new parts under construction in living creatures or fossils, so it obviously does not happen.  Furthermore, everyone agrees that harmful mutations appear many, many times more often than mutations needed for new construction ever could.  Over those millions of years, slightly harmful mutations that are hidden, or not destructive enough for natural selection to remove, would also quietly accumulate.  This would produce creatures loaded up with highly polluted genes.  Survival of the barely functional?  We do not find this either because cells have mechanisms that maintain the original design of a creature within it’s variation boundaries, and minimize the accumulation of mutations.  These include:

  • A proofreading system that catches almost all errors
  • A mismatch repair system to back up the proofreading system
  • Photoreactivation (light repair)
  • Removal of methyl or ethyl groups by O6 – methylguanine methyltransferase
  • Base excision repair
  • Nucleotide excision repair
  • Double-strand DNA break repair
  • Recombination repair
  • Error-prone bypass23

Harmful mutations happen constantly.  Without repair mechanisms, life would be very short and might not even get started because mutations often lead to disease, deformity, or death.  So even the earliest, “simple” creatures in the evolutionist’s primeval soup or tree of life would have needed a sophisticated repair system.  But the mechanisms not only remove harmful mutations from DNA, they would also remove mutations that evolutionists believe build new parts. How can the evolutionist explain the evolution of mechanisms that prevent evolution?  Clearly, natural processes cannot produce new types of creatures from existing ones.

A new science, Systems Biology, began around the year 2000.  At the Institute for Systems Biology website, they write: “As scientists have developed the tools and technologies which allow them to delve deeper into the foundations of biological activity — genes and proteins — they have learned that these components almost never work alone.  They interact with each other and with other molecules in highly structured but incredibly complex ways, similar to the complex interactions among the countless computers on the Internet.  Systems biology seeks to understand these complex interactions, as these are the keys to understanding life.”


A small section of a biological system in an organism, displayed as a 3D network

“To make sense of the genome, systems biologists think in terms of networks.  If two kinds of proteins or other biological molecules interact, they are connected on the network.”  “These network diagrams… show how individual pathways crisscross to form a tangled web.  Each protein in a pathway can interact with molecules in other pathways, sometimes dozens of them.”  Additionally, “systems biologists produce complex maps of how genes and proteins interact, and these maps help scientists analyze results from drug screening.”  “Cells ‘talk’ to each other by passing chemical signals back and forth.  They also sense their physical surroundings through proteins on their surfaces called integrins.  All these cues serve to orient the cells in the body and inform them about how to behave so that they cooperate with the rest of the cells in the tissue.”  “The cells are not complete by themselves.  They need signals from outside,” says Mina J. Bissell of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.  “The unit of function literally is the tissue.”— Patrick Barry. April 5, 2008. You, in a dish: cultured human cells could put lab animals out of work for chemical and drug testing. Science News, Vol. 173, No. 14, pp. 218-220.

Mutation-natural selection could no more build the vast, intricate networks in living creatures than a beaver could build the Hoover dam.

DNA has special handling devices.  About 200 base pairs of DNA wrap around a spool of histone protein.  Histone H1 clamps it together.

Each DNA-histone unit is a nucleosome.  These are folded into tangled loops that are called chromatin.  When certain molecules attach to tails on the histones, they affect how tightly packed the chromatin will be.  If it is loose, the DNA is more accessible and active; if it is tightly packed, the DNA is inactive.

Only a small portion of a creature’s DNA is protein-coding genes (around 1.5% in humans).  In the 1970s, evolutionists began calling the rest of it “junk DNA”, saying this collection of useless evolutionary debris showed there was no intelligent design involved.  Decades later, researchers are finding that the “junk” does vital work.  Some of this DNA plays a role in turning genes on and off at the right moments in a developing embryo15.  Other bits separate coding and regulating sections, like punctuation marks in writing, so that DNA is not a long run-on sentence16.  Other bits called Alu elements, found only in primates, can be spliced in or out during RNA processing to make different versions of the same gene.17 The “junk” label discouraged research into this part of the genome for many years; who would want to waste their time studying it?

Scientists have found that the number of genes a creature has is not a good measure of how complex it is.  For example, the human genome is 21 times larger than the fruit fly genome (3 billion base pairs versus 140 million), yet humans have only a little more than 2 times the number of protein coding genes (40,000 versus 17,000).  Tiny yeast has 6,000.  The main reason for biological complexity must be in the rest of the genome, the non-coding part, which determines how those genes are used.

Today there is an explosion of knowledge going on in the study of gene regulation networks.  But it is not led, assisted, or even inspired by the theory of evolution.  In fact, evolution theory has always predicted that researchers would find simple devices that mutation-natural selection, their little one-at-a-time change mechanism, could conceivably work on.  Yet each discovery has opened up higher levels of complexity in even the tiniest organisms.

The Bottom Line
There are only two possibilities.  Either every part of every living thing arose by random chance, or an intelligence designed them.  It is now clear that the theory of evolution’s only mechanism for building new parts and creatures, mutation-natural selection, is totally, utterly, pathetically inadequate.  In spite of overwhelming evidence that the theory of evolution is dead wrong, many are not ready to throw in the towel.  They desperately hope that some natural process will be found that causes things to fall together into organized complexity.  These are people of great faith.  And they are so afraid of connecting God with science that, like the Japanese Army of World War II, they would rather die than surrender.  Unfortunately, the staunchest defenders sit in places of esteem and authority as professors, scientists, and editors, and have the full faith of the news media.  The public is naturally in awe of their prestige.  But once the facts are understood it becomes obvious that the theory of evolution is long overdue for the trash can, and to perpetuate it is fraud.  Perhaps it made sense for what was known when The Origin of Species was published in 1859, but not today.

Many scientists are with us
The only tactic left to evolutionists is to ridicule their critics as simpletons who don’t understand how their pet theory really works.  Here is a link to a roster of hundreds of professionals whose advanced academic degrees certify that they thoroughly understand evolution theory.  They also have the courage to defy the high priests of academia by voluntarily adding their names to a skeptics list against Darwinism.

Some revealing quotes
Philip S. Skell, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, wrote in the August 29, 2005 edition of The Scientist: “I recently asked more than seventy eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong.  The responses were all the same: No.  I also examined the outstanding discoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others.  I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides.  Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.”
— Philip S. Skell. August 29, 2005. Why Do We Invoke Darwin? The Scientist, Vol. 19, No. 16, p. 10.

  • Philip S. Skell is Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus at Penn State University.  He is sometimes called “the father of carbene chemistry” in organic chemistry, and is widely known for the “Skell Rule”, which was first applied to carbenes – the “fleeting species” of carbon.  The rule, which predicts the most probable pathway through which certain chemical compounds will be formed, found use throughout the pharmaceutical and chemical industries.  He says that during World War II “I was personally associated with an antibiotics research group, engaged in the full range of activities, from finding organisms which inhibited bacterial growth to the isolation and proof of structure of the antibiotics they produced.”

Ernst Chain (1906-1979) and two others were awarded the 1945 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine.  Chain identified the structure of penicillin, and isolated the active substance.  He is considered to be one of the founders of the field of antibiotics.  Concerning Darwin’s theory of evolution, Chain found it to be “a very feeble attempt” to explain the origin of species based on assumptions so flimsy that “it can hardly be called a theory.”A He saw the reliance on chance mutations as a “hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts.”B He wrote:  “These classic evolutionary theories are a gross oversimplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they were swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest.”B Chain concluded that he “would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation” as Darwinism.A He was born in Berlin, Germany, and obtained his Ph.D. in biochemistry and physiology there.  He worked as a research scientist at Cambridge (also studying for a Ph.D. there), at Oxford University until 1948, and then as a professor and researcher at several other universities.  In 1938, Chain came across Alexander Fleming’s 1929 paper on penicillin, and showed it to his colleague Howard Florey.  In their research, Chain isolated and purified penicillin.–Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. April 2008. Ernst Chain: Antibiotics Pioneer. Acts&Facts, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 10-12.
A.  Clark, R.W. 1985. The Life of Ernst Chain: Penicillin and Beyond. New York: St. Martin’s Press, p. 147.
B.  Chain, E. 1970. Social Responsibility and the Scientist in Modern Western Society (Robert Waley Cohen memorial lecture). London: The Council of Christians and Jews, p. 25.

Richard C. Strohman, professor emeritus of molecular and cell biology at Berkeley, and an evolutionist, wrote in the March 1997 edition of Nature Biotechnology: “There is a striking lack of correspondence between genetic and evolutionary change.  Neo-Darwinian theory predicts a steady, slow continuous, accumulation of mutations (microevolution) that produces a progressive change in morphology leading to new species, genera, and so on (macroevolution).  But macroevolution now appears to be full of discontinuities (punctuated evolution), so we have a mismatch of some importance.  That is, the fossil record shows mostly stasis, or lack of change, in a species for many millions of years; there is no evidence there for gradual change even though, in theory, there must be a gradual accumulation of mutations at the micro level.”  “We currently have no adequate explanation for stasis or for punctuated equlibrium in evolution, or for higher order regulation in cells.”  “We seem to lack any scientific basis with which to explain, for example, evolution.”  “Not necessarily so.  It does suggest, however, that our evolutionary theory is incomplete.”  “The theory is in trouble because it insists on locating the driving force solely in random mutations.”  “It is becoming clear that sequence information in DNA, by itself, contains insufficient information for determing how gene products (proteins) interact to produce a mechanism of any kind.  The reason is that the multicomponent complexes constructed from many proteins are themselves machines with rules of their own; rules not written in DNA.”  “The rules… of brain formation are not reducible to genetic maps and to the rules of genetic theory.  Each higher level of organization has its own rules, and there is no continuous gradual transition from one level or hierarchy to the other.”  “We have been lulled into reasoning that if the gene theory works at one level–from DNA to protein–it must work at all higher levels as well.  We have thus extended the theory of the gene to the realm of gene management.  But gene management is an entirely different process, involving interactive cellular processes that display a complexity that may only be described as transcalculational, a mathematical term for mind boggling.”  “Understanding of complex function may in fact be impossible without recourse to influences outside of the genome.” –Richard C. Strohman. March 1997. The coming Kuhnian revolution in biology. Nature Biotechnology, Vol. 15, pp. 194-200.

Sean B. Carroll, of the Medical Institute and Laboratory of Molecular Biology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, wrote in a 2001 edition of Nature: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (microevolution) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).  Outsiders to this rich literature may be surprised that there is no consensus on this issue.”— Sean B. Carroll. 8 February 2001. Nature, Vol. 409, p. 669.

A symposium on evolution was held at the European Molecular Biology Laboratory in Heidelberg, Germany in November 2001, organized by PhD students.  The meeting report says that “the symposium ended with a panel discussion about questions of microevolution (evolution within the species) and macroevolution (evolution after speciation).  The issue at stake was whether extrapolation from the selection theory operating on organisms is sufficient to explain all patterns of macroevolution.  In other words, do we need an independent body of theory to explain the changes occurring above, as opposed to at, the species level?  There was no general agreement among the panel members.  It seems that the jury is still out on this important question.”— Gáspár Jékely. 2002. Meeting report – Evolution in a nutshell. European Molecular Biology Organization reports, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 307-311.

“Origin of Life” research
The theory of evolution says life started from raw chemicals.  Evolutionists long ago handed the problem off to specialists, trusting that they would come up with something.  Here are excerpts from candid reports by two scientists who have spent many years in this effort.  These men support evolution, but insist that experimental evidence back up every claim.

This is “what has been called the NASA definition of life: Life is a self-sustained chemical system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution.”  “Richard Dawkins elaborated on this image of the earliest living entity in his book The Selfish Gene: ‘At some point a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident.  We will call it the Replicator.  It may not have been the biggest or the most complex molecule around, but it had the extraordinary property of being able to create copies of itself.’  When Dawkins wrote these words 30 years ago, DNA was the most likely candidate for this role.”  “Unfortunately… DNA replication cannot proceed without the assistance of a number of proteins”.  So “which came first, the chicken or the egg?  DNA holds the recipe for protein construction.  Yet that information cannot be retrieved or copied without the assistance of proteins.  Which large molecule, then, appeared first in getting life started–proteins (the chicken) or DNA (the egg).?”

“A possible solution appeared when attention shifted to a new champion–RNA.”  According to this view, “life began with the appearance of the first RNA molecule.  In a… 1986 article, Nobel Laureate Walter Gilbert of Harvard University wrote in the journal Nature: ‘One can contemplate an RNA world, containing only RNA molecules that serve to catalyze the synthesis of themselves.  The first step of evolution proceeds then by RNA molecules performing the catalytic activities necessary to assemble themselves from a nucleotide soup.’  In this vision, the first self-replicating RNA that emerged from non-living matter carried out the functions now executed by RNA, DNA and proteins.”  “Perhaps two-thirds of scientists publishing in the origin-of-life field… still support the idea that life began with the spontaneous formation of RNA or a related self-copying molecule.”

“How did that first self-replicating RNA arise?”  Most people know of an “experiment published in 1953 by Stanley Miller.  He applied a spark discharge to a mixture of simple gases that were then thought to represent the atmosphere of the early Earth.  Two amino acids of the set of 20 used to construct proteins were formed in significant quantities, with others from that set present in small amounts.”  “Some writers have presumed that all of life’s building blocks could be formed with ease in Miller-type experiments and were present in meteorites and other extraterrestrial bodies.  This is not the case.”

“A careful examination of the results of the analysis of several meteorites led the scientists who conducted the work to a different conclusion: inanimate nature has a bias toward the formation of molecules made of fewer rather than greater numbers of carbon atoms, and thus show no partiality in favor of creating the building blocks of our kind of life.”  “RNA’s building blocks, nucleotides, are complex substances as organic molecules go.”  “Amino acids, such as those produced or found in these experiments, are far less complex than nucleotides”.  “No nucleotides of any kind have been reported as products of spark discharge experiments or in studies of meteorites.”

“To rescue the RNA-first concept from this otherwise lethal defect, its advocates have created a discipline called prebiotic synthesis.  They have attempted to show that RNA and its components can be prepared in their laboratories in a sequence of carefully controlled reactions.”  Finding “a specific organic chemical in any quantity… would justify its classification as ‘prebiotic,’ a substance that supposedly had been proved to be present on the early Earth.  Once awarded this distinction, the chemical could then be used in pure form, in any quantity, in another prebiotic reaction.  The products of such a reaction would also be considered ‘prebiotic’ and employed in the next step in the sequence.”  “Unfortunately, neither chemists nor laboratories were present on the early Earth to produce RNA.”  “The analogy that comes to mind is that of a golfer, who having played a golf ball through an 18-hole course, then assumed that the ball could also play itself around the course in his absence.  He had demonstrated the possibility of the event; it was only necessary to presume that some combination of natural forces (earthquakes, winds, tornadoes and floods, for example) could produce the same result, given enough time.”

“Many chemists, confronted with these difficulties, have fled the RNA-first hypothesis as if it were a building on fire.  One group, however, still captured by the vision of the self-copying molecule, has opted for an exit that leads to similar hazards.  In these revised theories, a simpler replicator arose first and governed life in a ‘pre-RNA world.’  Variations have been proposed in which the bases, the sugar or the entire backbone of RNA have been replaced by simpler substances, more accessible to prebiotic syntheses.  Presumably, this first replicator would also have the catalytic capabilities of RNA.  Because no trace of this hypothetical primal replicator and catalyst has been recognized so far in modern biology, RNA must have completely taken over all of its functions at some point following its emergence.”

“Further, the spontaneous appearance of any such replicator without the assistance of a chemist faces implausibilities that dwarf those involved in the preparation of a mere nucleotide soup.  Let us presume that a soup enriched in the building blocks of all of these proposed replicators has somehow been assembled, under conditions that favor their connection into chains.  They would be accompanied by hordes of defective building blocks, the inclusion of which would ruin the ability of the chain to act as a replicator.”  “There is no reason to presume that an indifferent nature would not combine units at random”.

“Probability calculations could be made, but I prefer a variation on a much-used analogy.  Picture a gorilla (very long arms are needed) at an immense keyboard connected to a word processor.  The keyboard contains not only the symbols used in English and European languages but also a huge excess drawn from every other known language and all of the symbol sets stored in a typical computer.  The chances for the spontaneous assembly of a replicator in the pool I described above can be compared to those of the gorilla composing, in English, a coherent recipe for the preparation of chili con carne.  With similar considerations in mind, Gerald F. Joyce of the Scripps Research Institute and Leslie Orgel of the Salk Institute concluded that the spontaneous appearance of RNA chains on the lifeless Earth ‘would have been a near miracle.’  I would extend this conclusion to all of the proposed RNA substitutes that I mentioned above.”  “Nobel Laureate Christian de Duve has called for ‘a rejection of improbabilities so incommensurably high that they can only be called miracles, phenomena that fall outside the scope of scientific inquiry.’  DNA, RNA, proteins and other elaborate large molecules must then be set aside as participants in the origin of life.

What is left?  Theories that “employ a thermodynamic rather than a genetic definition of life, under a scheme put forth by Carl Sagan in the Encyclopedia Britannica: A localized region which increases in order (decreases in entropy) through cycles driven by an energy flow would be considered alive.”  “I estimate that about a third of the chemists involved in the study of the origin of life subscribe to theories based on this idea.”

It requires: “1) A boundary… to separate life from non-life.”  “2) An energy source”.  “3) A coupling mechanism must link the release of energy to the organization process that produces and sustains life.  The release of energy does not necessarily produce a useful result.  Chemical energy is released when gasoline is burned within the cylinders of my automobile, but the vehicle will not move unless that energy is used to turn the wheels.  A mechanical connection, or coupling, is required.”  “4) A chemical network must be formed, to permit adaptation and evolution” “on a path that leads to increased organization.”  “5) The network must grow and reproduce.”  “We can imagine, on the early Earth, a situation where many startups of this type occur, involving many alternative driver reactions and external energy sources.  Finally, a particularly hardy one would take root and sustain itself.”  “A system of reproduction must eventually develop.”  “Once independent units were established, they could evolve in different ways and compete with one another for raw materials; we would have made the transition from life that emerges from nonliving matter through the action of an available energy source to life that adapts to its environment by Darwinian evolution.”  “Many further steps in evolution would be needed to ‘invent’ the elaborate mechanisms for replication and specific protein synthesis that we observe in life today.”  They “would not reveal the specific events that led to the familiar DNA-RNA-protein-based organisms of today.”

“Systems of the type I have described usually have been classified under the heading ‘metabolism first’, which implies that they do not contain a mechanism for heredity.  In other words, they contain no obvious molecule or structure that allows the information stored in them (their heredity) to be duplicated and passed on to their descendants.”  “Over the years, many theoretical papers have advanced particular metabolism first schemes, but relatively little experimental work has been presented in support of them.”  “They have not yet demonstrated the operation of a complete cycle or its ability to sustain itself and undergo further evolution.  A ‘smoking gun’ experiment displaying those three features is needed to establish the validity of the small molecule approach.”
Shapiro, Robert. June 2007. A Simpler Origin for Life. Scientific American, Vol. 296, pp. 24-31.
Robert Shapiro, Ph.D. Harvard, is professor emeritus of chemistry and senior research scientist at New York University.  He is author or co-author of over 125 publications, primarily in the area of DNA chemistry.  In 2004 he was awarded the Trotter Prize in Information, Complexity and Inference.  Shapiro has been involved in the search for origin of life mechanisms, and has written four books on the subject for the general public.

“The feasibility of any particular proposed prebiotic cycle must depend on arguments about chemical plausibility, rather than on a decision about logical possibility.”  The metabolic cycles that have been identified by biochemists are of two kinds: simple cycles and autocatalytic cycles.  The citric acid cycle” is an example of a simple cycle.  “The reverse citric acid cycle” is an example of an autocatalytic cycle.  “Each molecule of citric acid introduced into the cycle results… in the generation of two molecules of citric acid.”  “That is why the cycle is described as autocatalytic.”  “The proposal that the reverse citric acid cycle operated… on the primitive Earth has been a prominent feature of some scenarios for the origin of life.”

“A different kind of autocatalytic cycle, which has no analog in biochemistry, has been hypothesized by Stuart Kauffman to self-organize spontaneously whenever amino acids condense together to form peptides.”  “Could prebiotic molecules and catalysts plausibly have the attributes… to make the self-organization of the cycles possible?”

“The identification of a cycle of plausible prebiotic reactions is a necessary but not a sufficient step toward the formulation of a plausible self-organizing prebiotic cycle.  The next, and more difficult step, is justifying the exclusion of side reactions that would disrupt the cycle.”  “It is not completely impossible that sufficiently specific mineral catalysts exist for each of the reactions of the reverse citric acid cycle, but the chance of a full set of such catalysts occurring at a single locality on the primitive Earth in the absence of catalysts for disruptive side reactions seems remote in the extreme.”

“It has sometimes been implied or claimed that [autocatalytic] cycles are not only stable, but also are capable of evolving to form nonenzymatic networks of great complexity.  Genetic materials are then seen as late additions to already fairly complex evolved life forms.  According to this view, a genetic material merely adds stability to systems that already have a substantial ‘information content’. “

“One way of achieving something useful might be to use one of the constituents of the core cycle as the starting point of a second independent autocatalytic cycle.”  “Another suggestion that might be explored is the possibility of a side reaction generating a catalyst for one of the reactions of the core cycle.”  “However, neither of these possibilities, nor any others with which I am familiar explains how a complex, interconnected family of cycles capable of evolution could arise or why it should be stable.”  “What is essential, therefore, is a reasonably detailed description, hopefully supported by experimental evidence, of how an evolvable family of cycles might operate.”  “Without such a description, acceptance of the possibility of complex nonenzymatic cyclic organizations that are capable of evolution can only be based on faith, a notoriously dangerous route to scientific progress.”

“Kauffman takes it for granted that if it is possible to write down on paper a closed peptide cycle and a set of catalyzed ligations leading from monomeric amino acids to the peptides of the cycle, then that cycle would self-organize spontaneously and come to dominate the chemistry of a reaction system.  This… is unlikely because peptide molecules do not have the properties that Kauffman assigns to them.”  “I have also explored a number of alternative systems with different numbers of amino acids or with inputs of random families of short peptides, and I find that they all encounter similar or more severe difficulties.”

“Kauffman assumes that, in sufficiently concentrated solution, the naturally occurring amino acids or some subset of them would condense spontaneously to form a mixture of long peptides in substantial yield.  In practice, this would not happen.”  “The catalytic properties of enzymes are remarkable.  They not only accelerate reaction rates by many orders of magnitude, but they also discriminate between potential substrates that differ very slightly in structure.  Would one expect similar discrimination in the catalytic potential of peptides of length ten or less?  The answer is clearly ‘no’, and it is this conclusion that ultimately undermines the peptide cycle theory.”

“Protein catalysis is dependent on the stable three-dimensional structures of enzymes and enzyme-substrate complexes.  Highly specific catalytic activity could only be expected from short peptides if they, too, adopted stable structures.”  “In fact, short peptides rarely form stable structures, and when they do, the structures are only marginally stable.  The synthesis of a decapeptide that would catalyze the ligation in the correct order of two particular pentapeptides out of a mixture of ten pentapeptides that are required to form the five cycle components, while failing to bring about any of the other possible ligations, would present an extremely difficult challenge to peptide chemistry.  It seems certain that the additional requirement that this peptide should also catalyze specifically many of the reactions leading from amino acids to the pentamer precursors of the decamers of the cycle could never be met.  Of course, the decamers need not be formed only from pairs of pentamers, but the difficulties are no less severe for more complex synthetic networks.  There are a number of possible ways in which this difficulty might be circumvented, but none seems relevant to the origin of life.”  “It is unlikely, therefore, that Kauffman’s theory describes any system relevant to the origin of life.”

“It is essential to subject metabolist proposals to the same kind of detailed examination and criticism that has rightly been applied to genetic theories.”  “Because little experimental work has been attempted, appraisal must be based on chemical plausibility.”  “The lack of a supporting background in chemistry is even more evident in proposals that metabolic cycles can evolve to ‘life-like’ complexity.  The most serious challenge to proponents of metabolic cycle theories–the problems presented by the lack of specificity of most nonenzymatic catalysts–has, in general, not been appreciated.  If it has, it has been ignored.

Theories of the origin of life based on metabolic cycles cannot be justified by the inadequacy of competing theories: they must stand on their own.”  “Experimental proof that such cycles are stable against the challenge of side reactions is even more important.”  “The prebiotic syntheses that have been investigated experimentally almost always lead to the formation of complex mixtures.  Proposed polymer replication schemes are unlikely to succeed except with reasonably pure input monomers.  No solution of the origin-of-life problem will be possible until the gap between the two kinds of chemistry is closed.”  “Solutions offered by supporters of geneticist or metabolist scenarios that are dependent on ‘if pigs could fly’ hypothetical chemistry are unlikely to help.”
Orgel, Leslie E. January 2008. The Implausibility of Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth. Public Library of Science (PLoS) Biology, Vol. 6, No. 1, e18, pp. 5-13.
Leslie E. Orgel, Ph.D. Oxford, was a biochemist who studied life on primitive Earth.  He conducted research at Cambridge, the University of Chicago, the California Institute of Technology, and later joined the Chemical Evolution Laboratory of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego, California.  He died at age 80 in October 2007.  The above article was published posthumously.

After the “tree of life”
In a paper about bacteria, two evolutionary biologists write, “we cannot rely exclusively on traditional genealogical relationships.”  “A single taxonomy will be likely to provide an overly coarse picture”.  It should be replaced by “more taxonomies based on real biological processes”.  “Discarding all but one of these process-based taxonomies would be comparable to reducing a person’s identity to a single aspect of his or her life, even though he or she might have an effective role in many organizations: professional, artistic, sports, family and so on.  To avoid overlooking any of the natural groups, it seems legitimate to propose – rather than a single taxonomy of microbial species – many taxonomies”.  “We suggest giving up the unique hierarchy as the reference classification system and instead encourage the production of a comprehensive interactive database in which an individual could possibly belong to overlapping taxonomical groups.”  “Any organism can then be characterized by many names because it can belong to more than one group at once.”
Bapteste, Eric, Yan Boucher. 2008. Lateral gene transfer challenges principles of microbial systematics. Trends in Microbiology, Vol. 16, No. 5, pp. 200-207.

Epigenetics
These are excerpts from a March 2008 report in Science News magazine: “Many people regard ribonucleic acid, as RNA is formally known, as ‘just a middleman between DNA and protein,’ says Claes Wahlestedt, a neuroscientist and genome researcher at the Scripps Research Institute in Jupiter, Fla.  Shuttling genetic information from DNA to a cell’s protein factories has long been recognized as RNA’s day job, summarized” as “DNA makes RNA makes protein.”  “Some researchers estimate that as much as 98 percent of the human genome is copied into RNA, says Sofie Salama of the University of California, Santa Cruz.”  “Initial observations of the genome showed islands of protein-coding genes separated by vast oceans of DNA–sometimes called junk DNA–where nothing happened.  That would mean that only about 2 percent of the human genome is transcribed into RNA.  But recent efforts to map all of the RNA transcripts show that virtually every base pair of DNA in the human genome is copied into at least one RNA molecule.”

“More than 20 classes of noncoding RNA have been discovered in the past decade.  Many of these RNAs are much smaller than their protein-coding cousins, the messenger RNAs.  Some noncoding RNAs contain a mere 20 nucleotides, the chemical units corresponding to letters in the genetic alphabet.  Scientists used to throw away such short bits of RNA, thinking the tiny pieces were nothing more than breakdown products of larger molecules–basically garbage, Wahlestedt says.”

“Researchers now know that noncoding RNAs get involved in virtually everything that happens in or to a cell, says Georges St. Laurent III, a computational and molecular biologist at George Washington University in Washington, D.C.”  “They monitor temperature, chemical conditions, electrical currents, and other signals from the environment and then tell the cell how to respond.”

“One class of noncoding RNAs, known as microRNAs, modulates production of proteins.  MicroRNAs get their name from their minuscule size–most are only about 22 nucleotides long.  These short pieces of RNA find and bind to complementary sequences in messenger RNAs.  Usually that binding causes the ribosome, the protein-building machinery in a cell, to grind to a halt.  The ribosome remains paused until other signals allow it to resume making protein or until the RNA message is destroyed.”  ” ‘It’s not only important that you make a particular protein, but when and where you make it,’ Salama says.”— Tina Hesman Saey. March 1, 2008. Micromanagers: New classes of RNAs emerge as key players in the brain. Science News, Vol. 173, No. 9, pp. 136-137.

Non-coding RNAs have risen from “junk” to “drivers of complexity”.22 “Sequencing the genomes of 85 species has revealed that in any given organism, increasing biological complexity is correlated with an increasing number of non-protein-coding DNA sequences and not, as previously assumed, with an increasing number of protein-coding genes.”22 “The sheer number of non-coding RNAs is estimated in the 100s of thousands.”7 “It is clear that tens of thousands may operate within a cell”.22

“Interference and activation can be caused by the same transcript”.3 “A large part of the transcriptional activity in the human genome is derived from repeat sequences”.22 “Repeat elements… occupy 40-45% of a typical mammalian genome”.3 “Alu repetitive elements constitute 10% of the human genome”.22 “Repeat elements, such as the Alu family in humans and B2 in mice have provided regulatory signals for RNA PolII transcription.”5 “Some of the Alu elements… may have functions in stress response, chromatin organization or signaling events in the early embryo.  Alu transcripts are… activated by heat shock and DNA damaging agents”.22

There are levels of non-coding RNA regulation that have yet to be discovered.22 Studying the old “junk” transcripts can lead to understanding hidden layers of cell regulation and how deregulation can lead to the understanding of human disease.22 “The scientific community is getting more aware of the importance of the formerly abandoned ‘junk’ DNA.  What we have learned so far is likely just the tip of the iceberg.”22

It is clear that biological complexity depends less on gene number and more on how those genes are used.  Researchers are realizing that regulation is on multiple levels18; there are intricate feedback loops.4 Stretches of DNA can be inactivated by attaching methyl groups.  Tiny embryos need to grow according to a body plan organized in steps that have to happen at the right time in the right sequence.  Their cells use timers and spatial signals to guide their growth.  For example, a signal chemical is made at one end of an embryo and spreads out.  Cells act according to how much signal chemical reaches them.  Signal chemicals spreading from opposite ends of an embryo can interact to coordinate construction.14

In small genomes, such as yeast, the parts of DNA that regulate a gene are next to the gene.  In more complex genomes, such as human and mouse, they can be far apart.  Cells have ways, still unknown, of moving sections of chromosomes next to each other to get the right parts together to control gene expression.6 This happens constantly.

To respond to a rapidly changing environment, a creature’s genes have to be turned on and off in a highly coordinated way.  The genetic network must be stable under a broad range of conditions, but flexible enough to recognize and respond to important signals when things around it change.  This operating at the brink of order and chaos is well known to systems scientists.  They call such systems critical.  This property has now been recognized in plants, animals, and microbes.  It allows them to quickly detect and respond to external stimuli, small or large.3

Zombie science
“Although the classical ideal is that scientific theories are evaluated by a careful teasing-out of their internal logic and external implications, and checking whether these deductions and predictions are in-line-with old and new observations; the fact that so many vague, dumb or incoherent scientific theories are apparently believed by so many scientists for so many years is suggestive that this ideal does not necessarily reflect real world practice.  In the real world it looks more like most scientists are quite willing to pursue wrong ideas for so long as they are rewarded with a better chance of achieving more grants, publications and status.”

To say “that the theory is phoney, and always was phoney, and this is why it so singularly fails to predict reality is regarded as simplistic, crass, merely a sign of lack of sophistication.  And anyway, there are… the reputations of numerous scientists who are now successful and powerful on the back of the phoney theory, and who by now control the peer review process (including allocation of grants, publications and jobs) so there is a powerful disincentive against upsetting the apple cart.”

“Zombie science is science that is dead but will not lie down.”  “Zombie science is supported because it is useful propaganda.  Zombie science is deployed in arenas such as political rhetoric, public administration, management, public relations, marketing and the mass media generally.  It persuades, it constructs taboos, it buttresses some kind of rhetorical attempt to shape mass opinion.  Indeed, zombie science often comes across in the mass media as being more plausible than real science.”
Charlton, Bruce G. 2008. Zombie science: A sinister consequence of evaluating scientific theories purely on the basis of enlightened self-interest. Medical Hypotheses, Vol. 71, pp. 327-329.

Darwin is liked by evolutionists because he liberated science from the straitjacket of observation and opened the door to storytellers.  This gave professional evolutionists job security so they can wander through biology labs as if they belong there.

— David Coppedge
Speaking of Science, Creation Matters, May/June 2003

**********

1.  Alberts, Bruce, Alexander Johnson, Julian Lewis, Martin Raff, Keith Roberts, Peter Walter. 2008. Molecular Biology of The Cell, 5th edition. Garland Science, New York.

2.  Anderson, G. M. 1996. Thermodynamics of Natural Systems. John Wiley & Sons, Toronto.

3.  Balleza, Enrique, Elena R. Alvarez-Buylla, Alvaro Chaos, Stuart Kauffman, Ilya Shmulevich, Maximino Aldana. June 2008. Critical Dynamics in Genetic Regulatory Networks: Examples from Four Kingdoms. PLoS ONE, Vol. 3, No. 6, pp. 1-10.

4.  Brandman, Onn, Tobias Meyer. 17 October 2008. Feedback Loops Shape Cellular Signals in Space and Time. Science, Vol. 322, No. 5900, pp. 390-395.

5.  Carninci, Piero, Jun Yasuda, Yoshihide Hayashizaki. 2008. Multifaceted mammalian transcriptome. Current opinion in Cell Biology, Vol. 20, pp. 274-280.

6.  Cemic, Ladislav. 2005. Thermodynamics in Mineral Sciences. Springer, New York.

7.  Dekker, Job. 28 March 2008. Gene Regulation in the Third Dimension. Science, Vol. 319, pp. 1793-1794.

8.  Doolittle, W. Ford. 25 June 1999. Phylogenetic Classification and the Universal Tree. Science, Vol. 284, No. 5423, pp. 2124-2128.

9.  Fåhraeus, Robin, Marc Blondel. 2008. Editorial: RNA-assisted protein folding. Biotechnology Journal, Vol. 3, pp. 967-969.

10.  Gillooly, James F., Andrew P. Allen, Geoffrey B. West, James H. Brown. January 4, 2005. The rate of DNA evolution: Effects of body size and temperature on the molecular clock. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 102, No. 1, pp. 140-145.

11.  Gish, Duane T., PhD. Biochemistry. January 2007. A Few Reasons an Evolutionary Origin of Life Is Impossible. Impact #403, Acts and Facts, Institute for Creation Research.

12.  Glass, John I., Nacyra Assad-Garcia, Nina Alperovich, Shibu Yooseph, Matthew R. Lewis, Mahir Maruf, Clyde A. Hutchison III, Hamilton O. Smith, J. Craig Venter. January 10, 2006. Essential genes of a minimal bacterium. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 103, No. 2, pp. 425-430.

13. Lawton, Graham. 21 January 2009. Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life. New Scientist Magazine, issue 2692.

14.  Lewis Julian. 17 October 2008. From Signals to Patterns: Space, Time, and Mathematics in Developmental Biology. Science, Vol. 322, pp. 399-403.

15.  Lowe, Craig B., Gill Bejerano, David Haussler. May 8, 2007. Thousands of human mobile element fragments undergo strong purifying selection near developmental genes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 104, No. 19, pp. 8005-8010.16.  Lunyak, Victoria V., Gratien G. Prefontaine, Esperanza Núñez, Thorsten Cramer, Bong-Gun Ju, Kenneth A. Ohgi, Kasey Hutt, Rosa Roy, Angel García-Díaz, Xiaoyan Zhu, Yun Yung, Lluís Montoliu, Christopher K. Glass, Michael G. Rosenfeld. July 13, 2007. Developmentally Regulated Activation of a SINE B2 Repeat as a Domain Boundary in Organogenesis. Science, Vol. 317, No. 5835, pp. 248-251.

17.  Makalowski, Wojciech. May 23, 2003. Not Junk After All. Science, Vol. 300, No. 5623, pp. 1246-1247.

18.  Makeyev, Eugene V., Tom Maniatis. 28 March 2008. Multilevel Regulation of Gene Expression by MicroRNAs. Science, Vol. 319, pp. 1789-1790.

19.  Pace, John K. II, Clément Gilbert, Marlena S. Clark, Cédric Feschotte. November 4, 2008. Repeated horizontal transfer of a DNA transposon in mammals and other tetrapods. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 105, No. 44, pp. 17023-17028.

20.  Prigogine, Ilya, Gregoire Nicolis, Agnes Babloyants. 1972. Thermodynamics of Evolution. Physics Today, Vol. 25, No. 11, pp. 23-44.

21.  Richardson, Michael K., James Hanken, Mayoni L. Gooneratne, Claude Pieau, Albert Raynaud, Lynne Selwood, Glenda M. Wright. July 1997. There is no highly conserved embryonic stage in the vertebrates: implications for current theories of evolution and development. Anatomy and Embryology, Vol. 196, No. 2, pp. 91-106.

22.  Széll, Márta, Zsuzsanna Bata-Csörgö, Lajos Kemény. 2008. The enigmatic world of mRNA-like ncRNAs: Their role in human evolution and in human diseases. Seminars in Cancer Biology, Vol. 18, pp. 141-148.

23.  Weaver, Robert F. 2008. Molecular Biology, Fourth Edition. McGraw-Hill, New York. pp. 660-680.

24.  Wood, Richard D., Michael Mitchell, John Sgouros, Tomas Lindahl. 16 February 2001. Human DNA Repair Genes. Science, Vol. 291, No. 5507, pp. 1284-1289.

John Michael Fischer, 2006-2009
http://www.newgeology.us

Biblical Proof of a Pretribulation Rapture

Biblical Proof of a Pretribulation Rapture

By David J. Stewart

“By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.” -Hebrews 11:5

The Church will be removed from the earth BEFORE the appearing of the Antichrist (2nd Thessalonians 2:7,8). There isn’t one verse in the entire Bible which indicates that the Church will go through the Tribulation period. In fact, if you want proof of a Pretribulation Rapture, you’ll find it simply by studying the Bible. If we compare Scriptures having to do with the Translation of the Church (i.e., the Rapture), with those passages relating to the setting up of Christ’s Kingdom, one can only reasonably conclude that it would be utterly IMPOSSIBLE for these two events to occur simultaneously. Let’s look at some of the comparisons:

  1. Matthew 25:31,32 – “When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory. And before him shall be gathered all nations” Carefully notice that Jesus is going to sit upon His throne in Jerusalem when He returns, and the nations of earth will be gathered before Him to be judged. How can this fact be reconciled with 1st Thessalonians 4:17, which states that the saints will be caught up together to meet with the Lord in the air?

  2. Matthew 25:32 to 34 – “And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” Please notice that there is NO translation (i.e., Rapture) of the sheep mentioned here. When the Lord returns to the earth at the Second Coming WITH His own, He is going to gather the nations of the earth together–separating the sheep from the goats (vs. 32), i.e., the righteous from the unrighteous. The sheep (saved) will simply enter the Kingdom, and the goats (unbelievers) be cast into everlasting fire. TH The test in this judgment is the treatment accorded by the nations to those whom Christ here calls “my brethren.” These brethren are the Jewish remnant (i.e., the 144,000) who will have preached the Gospel of the kingdom to all nations during the Tribulation. Carefully notice, there is NO mention of a resurrection and the persons judged are the nations of the earth. In sharp contrast, according to 1st Corinthians 15:52 there WILL BE a resurrection at the time of the Rapture.

    The test in this judgment is the treatment accorded by the nations to those whom Christ here calls “my brethren.” These brethren are the Jewish remnant (i.e., the 144,000) who will have preached the Gospel of the Kingdom to all nations during the Tribulation. Carefully notice, the is NO mention of a resurrection and the persons judged are the nations of the earth. In sharp contrast, according to 1 st Corinthians 15:52 there WILL BE a resurrection at the time of the Rapture.

  3. It is important to recognize that when Jesus returns to set up His Kingdom there is NO Rapture, i.e., no one is caught up into the air to be with the Lord. People who become Christians during the Tribulation Period will enter with their earthly bodies into the Millennium. Proof of this is found in Isaiah 65:20-25, and in Zechariah 8:5 where children are mentioned playing during the Millennium. Those saved during the Tribulation will enter physically into the Millennial Kingdom. Where will these humans come from if the saints are ALL raptured and changed at the END of the Tribulation, i.e., a Postribulation Rapture? Obviously this cannot be. The only logical conclusion is a Pretribulation Rapture!
  4. Jude 1:14 – “And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints.” Carefully notice that NO mention is made of a Rapture at this time. Quite the contrary, here the Lord Jesus is returning with TEN THOUSANDS of His saints to the earth. That is drastically different than having our bodies changed, in the twinkling of an eye, and being “caught up” into the clouds to meet with the Lord. It would make no sense to say that Jesus is going to Rapture the saints, while coming to set up His Kingdom at the same time. Proof that this is not the case is the fact that Jesus will gather the nations and separate the sheep from the goats, i.e., the saved from the unsaved, at His Second Coming. Why would Jesus separate the saints TWICE? That is, why would Jesus Rapture the saints into the air, and then regather the SAME people a short time later when He arrived on the earth? Do you see the dilemma of the Postribulation heresy?
  5. Revelation 19:11 to 14 – “And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.” Here we read about ARMIES from Heaven, riding upon white horses, following Christ into the Battle of Armageddon. There is NO mention of a Rapture. There is NOTHING in 1st Corinthians 15:51-54 or 1st Thessalonians 4:13-18 about armies, or ten thousands of saints, coming to earth to war. The exact opposite is stated… we will be LEAVING this sin-cursed earth! Amen!

These are but a few clear and irrefutable Scriptural evidences teaching a Pretribulation Rapture.

Further Evidence of a Pretribulation Rapture

God will NOT allow the Church to go through the Tribulation Period. It will be a time of atrocities as the world has never known! God wouldn’t destroy the wicked in Noah’s day until Noah and his family were all safely aboard the ark. Not one drop of rain fell until Noah and his family were on the ark, and God had shut the door. Afterwards, the rains fell and the wicked were utterly destroyed. The same is true of Lot and his family. Although Lot was a backslidden believer, he was nevertheless a “just man,” a righteous man (2nd Peter 2:7,8). We read in Genesis 19:22, “Haste thee, escape thither; for I cannot do any thing till thou be come thither.” These words were spoken by the angel whom God had sent to reign down fire and brimstone upon Sodom and Gomorrah. No judgment could fall upon Sodom, until Lot and his family were removed. Likewise, the Church will be Translated (Raptured) away from this sin-cursed world before the Tribulation.

“Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.” -Revelation 3:10

The “word of my patience” in Revelation 3:10 is the Word of God. Here we have God’s promise that because we have kept HIS WORD concerning salvation, i.e., because we have OBEYED the Gospel, He will keep us “from the hour of temptation” (i.e., the Tribulation Period). This seven-year period of tribulation is referred to in the Old Testament as The Time of Jacob’s Trouble in Jeremiah 30:7-11…

Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob’s trouble; but he shall be saved out of it. For it shall come to pass in that day, saith the LORD of hosts, that I will break his yoke from off thy neck, and will burst thy bonds, and strangers shall no more serve themselves of him … Therefore fear thou not, O my servant Jacob, saith the LORD; neither be dismayed, O Israel: for, lo, I will save thee from afar, and thy seed from the land of their captivity; and Jacob shall return, and shall be in rest, and be quiet, and none shall make him afraid. For I am with thee, saith the LORD, to save thee: though I make a full end of all nations whither I have scattered thee, yet will I not make a full end of thee: but I will correct thee in measure, and will not leave thee altogether unpunished.

It will be when the Church is removed from the earth (i.e., after the Rapture) that God will again recognize the nation Israel in a special covenant relationship with Himself. During the Great Tribulation, a remnant out of Israel will repent and turn to their Messiah. They will become His witnesses (Revelation 7:3-8). Thus, the time of Jacob’s trouble will cause many Israelites to turn to the God of the Bible. We read in Matthew 24:14 concerning the Tribulation Period, “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.” We read in Revelation 7:4 who the 144,000 are going to be … “And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.” The 144,000 will be Jewish soulwinners! These are the preachers spoken of in Matthew 24:14. They will win multitudes of lost sinners to the Lord (Revelation 7:9). As a result, many of them will be martyred (Revelation 6:9).

The Abomination of Desolation

As I look at the events of the world today, and the stage being set for the coming Antichrist, I personally believe that the Pretribulation Rature is near, i.e., the Rapture will precede the 7-year Tribulation Period. The Bible plainly states that no man knows WHEN the Lord will return (Mark 13:32), which means that the Rapture MUST come before the Tribulation Period. The reason is because the Bible plainly states that the Second Coming of Christ will happen 3 1/2 years AFTER The Abomination of Desolation, i.e., when the Antichrist declares himself to be god and demands worship from the masses of the world (Mark 13:14; Daniel 9:27). So it will be KNOWN exactly how much time remains before the Second Coming, once the Antichrist declares himself to be god from the temple in Jerusalem. If you study the King James Bible at face value, you can only conclude a Pretribulation Rapture.

Why the Tribulation Period?

Although the Tribulation will affect the entire earth, and everyone in the world–it will center primarily around the nation of Israel (Ezekiel 20:37; 22:18-22; Malachi 3:2,3). We read in Ezekiel 20:37-38, “And I will cause you to pass under the rod, and I will bring you into the bond of the covenant: And I will purge out from among you the rebels, and them that transgress against me: I will bring them forth out of the country where they sojourn, and they shall not enter into the land of Israel: and ye shall know that I am the LORD.” This prophecy concerns Israel during the Tribulation Period. Ezekiel tells us “why” God will allow this horrible time of unimaginable suffering and horror for the Jews. It will be a time of judgment against the people who have rebelled against the Lord. He will cause them “to pass under the rod,” i.e., the Shepherd’s rod. God will SEPARATE the true remnant of Israel (i.e., saved Jews) from counterfeit Jews (i.e., unsaved Jews). No unsaved Jew will ever enter the Promised Land, which God promised to Abraham and his seed in Genesis 17:8. Consider yourself forewarned that this promise only applies to those who are BORN-AGAIN CHRISTIANS… “And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3:29). All Jews who follow the Christ-rejecting religion of JUDAISM will be cast in to Hellfire.

To clarify, the Tribulation Period will be a time when God pours out His wrath upon mankind for his wickedness; but the PRIMARY purpose of the Tribulation Period is to prepare Israel to receive her King, Jesus Christ. This is not Zionism, which is a false doctrine. Zionism is the same sin that Abraham and Sara committed when they doubted God in their impatience and took matters into their own hands (i.e., concerning the promise of a son, Isaac). Likewise, some elite Jews today (i.e., the synagogue of Satan – Revelation 2:9), occultists and Judaizers, have taken it upon themselves to FORCE the issue of restoring the Promised Land. God is not part of this. The Star of David is not found in the Bible and is an occult symbol. Zionism glorifies the Jews, while demonizing the Arabs. This is unbiblical, as God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34). Keep in mind that the Arabs are ALSO descendants of Abraham. We should not discriminate. Jews are NO better than anyone else. This is not being anti-Semitic; rather, it is being just.

Daniel 12:1 states concerning the Great Tribulation

And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

Only those Jews who are true believers in Christ, who have their name written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, will be delivered from the horrors of God’s wrath. In order for The Time of Jacob’s Trouble to occur, the Antichrist needs to be present, which means the Church must be gone from the world. By the way, the only thing preventing America from total immediate destruction are it’s Christian families, because we are fighting against the Devil’s crowd. The Antichrist’s hands will be tied with millions of Christians still in the world.

The Church Must be Removed from the World Before the Tribulation!

Thus, having laid the foundation, let me say that the Church (i.e., all believers) MUST be removed from the world before any of this can happen. 2nd Thessalonians 2:3-10 clearly tells us that the Antichrist (man of sin) cannot be revealed on earth until the Church is removed from the world. 2nd Thessalonians 2:7-9 state… “For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders.” It’s as obvious as can be to any genuine believer, who is familiar with the Word of God, who “He” in verse 7 is referring to… the Holy Spirit of God! Jesus said in John 16:8 concerning the Holy Spirit… “And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment.” Where does the Word of God say that the Holy Spirit lives? 1st Corinthians 3:16 says… “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?” Are you starting to get the picture? The Antichrist doesn’t stand a chance with Christians in the world, because we will EXPOSE him, just as we do other servants of Satan (such as the Clinton and Bush Families). Wake up oh Christian! The Devil is at your front door!

2nd Thessalonians 2:7 is incontrovertible PROOF that the Rapture must precede the Tribulation! There can be NO other Person for “He” than the Holy Spirit. Also, the events surrounding the Second Coming of Christ are irreconcilably different with the events concerning the Rapture–solid PROOF that the Bible teaches a Pretribulation Rapture! Some ignorant people today are claiming that the Rapture doctrine didn’t exist until recent centuries. That is absurd! We are reading the exact same Words of God today which the Apostle Paul penned nearly 2,000 years ago! It’s not a question of history, but of faith in the precious Words of God.

————————————————————————————————————–


More Reasons Why Rapture Occurs Before The Tribulation. –Material below by John Hagee

Covered by the Blood
First of all, the very nature of the Tribulation precludes the church from going through any of it. The Tribulation is a time of wrath, judgment, indignation, darkness, destruction, and death. Paul wrote, “There is therefore now no condemnation (judgment) to those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1).
The church has been cleansed by the blood of Jesus and needs no other purification. “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9).

Salt Conquers Satan
Another reason I believe the pre-tribulation position to be scripturally correct is Paul’s teaching in 2 Thessalonians 2. The believers in Thessalonica were experiencing great persecution, and they wanted to know whether the persecutions they endured were part of the Tribulation and whether Paul was right when he said in his first letter to then that Christians would not go through the Tribulation.
Paul tells them “not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come” (2Thess 2:1, 2). Paul says that they are not in the Tribulation. He writes, “that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition” (v.3). The “man of sin” is the Antichrist, who will come from the federated states of Europe, the final from of Gentile world power.
The Antichrist has not appeared, “for the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains (hinders) will do so [keep on hindering] until He is taken out of the way” (v.7).
Who is restraining Satan from presenting the Antichrist to the world as God? It is the church, the salt of the earth, that conquers corruption on contact. When the Lord Jesus appears in the clouds of heaven to remove the church from the earth, God’s restraint will be removed, and Satan can then accomplish his purpose of dominating the world—but not until the church has been raptured from the earth.

Vengeance for the Ungodly
Paul’s writing in 2 Thessalonians 1:7, 8, which speaks of giving “you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed,” but “taking vengeance on those who do9 not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The wrath of God during the Tribulation is to be poured out on “those who do not know “God,” not on the church.
God saved Lot from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah because he was a righteous man. Since he was a righteous man (2 Pet. 2:7), the angels said, “Escape for your life! Do not look behind you nor stay anywhere in the plain. Escape to the mountains, lest you be destroyed…For I cannot do anything until you arrive there” (Gen. 19:17, 22). The presence of one righteous man held back the wrath of God. In the same manner, the church has to be removed before the wrath of God can be poured out upon the earth.

March 22, 2009

Homosexual Marriage ?

Sodomite (Homosexual)

m a r r i a g e ?

What does God say about sodomites?God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature.

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another: men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient.

Romans 1:26-28

Many Christians take for granted that people know that sodomy (homosexuality) is sin. I know from personal experience that this is far from the truth. I’ve heard Christians say things like, “Well, it’s not for me, but I don’t see any problem with them doing it as long as they don’t bother me.” — that is erroneous thinking. The Biblical and historical record prove that homosexuals WILL bother you. Sodomy (homosexuality) is cancerous, it spreads, infecting everything in its pathway.Look at Sodom and Gomorrah–those angels weren’t there a good 24 hours and all the men of the town came to Lot’s house to rape them. What about the Levite priest? He hadn’t been in town no time and the sodomites wanted to rape him but they were given his concubine instead. They abused that woman all night long and she died on the doorstep the next morning.

I have a documentary film about sodomy that would make your stomach turn. If you are a parent, forget about being “politically correct” you’d better warn your kids. Those sodomites want age of sexual consent laws abolished and they are into unmentionable perversions. Some sodomites on this film said that they don’t believe even sodomite “marriages” should be confined to two people! They say that sodomites, lesbians, and bisexuals should be able to get married in a group. If that ain’t Satanic, I don’t know what is. They simply want to defile what God has given to us as a gift. Isn’t that what Satan seeks to do?

I saw a special on PBS about “Fire Island” a place out in California where a bunch of sodomites had continual orgies and AIDS was spread all over the place. One man went out there from Kansas and had sex with an estimated 3,000 men in the course of three years. Some men on the program could not even estimate how many encounters they’d had–sometimes 50 a night in bathhouses. [August 2002 update: those that know me, know that I don’t watch hellivision, I saw this some years ago.]

When I was single and looking for a roommate I placed an ad in the paper. A woman called me up about the ad saying that she had recently gotten divorced so that she could be free in her lesbian relationship. Another woman called trying to lure me into a sodomite relationship. When I was in the 8th grade I was invited to an orgy–I didn’t know what it was but I didn’t like the way the girl was sounding when she said it. When I was in high school a woman offered this kid I knew $100 to bring me to her–she had seen me cheerleading at a basketball game–but he told me about it and I was scared to death and stayed away–looking at it in retrospect, a lot of young people went to her and her husband’s house. I’ve seen a lot more, but you get the point. Warn your children, parents! The sodomites are but too glad to indoctrinate them.

So now sodomites want to get married…


I saw a news clip of the Honorable Senator Robert Byrd on television speaking on behalf of the Defense of Marriage Act. It brought tears to my eyes as the gray-headed distinguished gentleman stood on the floor quoting God’s standards from the authorized King James Bible. It was so quiet in there you could hear a pin drop.

Though I’m not much of a letter writer, I felt compelled to write Senator Byrd and encourage him for his bold stand. His office sent me a letter and attached a copy of his remarks. I think it very good to include some excerpts for you to read.


Congressional Record

Proceedings and Debates of the 104th Congress, Second Session

Vol. 142 WASHINGTON, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 No. 123

Senate

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, the senior Senator from Oklahoma, in cosponsoring the Defense of Marriage Act. Although I am glad to work with Senator Nickles in this effort, I must admit that, in all of my nearly 44 years in the Congress, I never envisioned that I would see a measure such as the Defense of Marriage Act.

It is incomprehensible to me that federal legislation would be needed to provide a definition of two terms that for thousands of years have been perfectly clear and unquestioned. That we have arrived at a point where the Congress of the United States must actually reaffirm in the statute books something as simple as the definition of “marriage” and “spouse,” is almost beyond my grasp. But as the current state of legal affairs has shown, this bill is a necessary endeavor.

…Let me read from, “The Case For Same-Sex Marriage,” by William N. Eskridge, Jr. [At this point the Senator makes clear that the following is the author’s opinion not his own]

My guess is that one or more of the foregoing denominations [Episcopal, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Unitarian, Society of Friends/Quakers, Methodist] will tilt towards same sex unions or marriages in the next 5 to 10 years. Even the religions that are most prominently opposed to gay marriages have clergy who perform gay marriage ceremonies. The Roman Catholic Church firmly opposes gay marriage but its celebrated priest, John J. McNeill says that he and many other Catholic clergy have performed same-sex commitment services. Although Father McNeill’s position is marginalized within the Catholic Church, it reflects the views of many devout Catholics. Support for same-sex marriage is probably most scarce among Baptists in the South.You can be assured that same-sex marriage is an issue that has arrived worldwide and that efforts to head it off will only be successful in the short term.

…Therefore, Mr. President, the time is now, the place is here, to debate this issue. It confronts us now. It comes even nearer.

There are those who say, “Why does the Senate not debate and act upon relevant matters?” This is relevant. And it is relevant today.

In very simple and easy to read language, this bill says that a marriage is the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and that a spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex. There is not, of course, anything earth-shaking in that declaration. We are not breaking any new ground here. We are not setting any new precedent. We are not overturning the status quo in any way, shape or form. On the contrary, all this bill does is reaffirm for purposes of Federal law what is already understood by everyone.

Mr. President, throughout the annals of human experience, in dozens of civilizations and cultures of varying value systems, humanity has discovered that the permanent relationship between men and women is a keystone to the stability, strength, and health of human society—a relationship worthy of legal recognition and judicial protection. The purpose of this kind of union between human beings of opposite gender is primarily for the establishment of a home atmosphere in which a man and a woman pledge themselves exclusively to one another and who bring into being children for the fulfilment of their love for one another and for the greater good of the human community at large.

Obviously human beings enter into a variety of relationships. Business partnerships, friendships, alliances for mutual benefits, and team memberships all depend upon emotional unions of one degree or another. For that reason, a number of these relationships have found standing under the laws of innumerable nations.

However, in no case, has anyone suggested that these relationships deserve the special recognition or the designation commonly understood as “marriage.” The suggestion that relationships between members of the same gender should ever be accorded the status or the designation of marriage flies in the face of the thousands of years of experience about the societal stability that traditional marriage has afforded human civilization. To insist that male-male or female-female relationships must have the same status as the marriage relationship is more than unwise, it is patently absurd.

…Out of same-sex relationships, no children can result. Out of such relationships emotional bonding oftentimes does not take place, and many such relationships do not result in the establishment of “families” as society universally interprets that term. Indeed as history teaches us too often in the past, when cultures waxed casual about the uniqueness and sanctity of the marriage commitment between men and women, those cultures have been shown to be in decline. This was particularly true in the ancient world in Greece and, more particularly, in Rome. In both Greece and Rome, same-sex relationships were not uncommon.

…Suetonius, the Roman biographer, relates that Julius Caesar prostituted his body to be abused by King Nicomedes of Bithynia, and that Curio the Elder, in an oration, called Caesar “a woman for all men and a man for all women.”

While same-sex relations were not unknown, therefore, to the ancients, same-sex marriages were a different matter. But they did sometimes involve utilization of the forms and the customs of heterosexual marriage. For example, the Emperor Nero, who reigned between 54 and 68 A.D., took the marriage vows with a young man named Sporus, in a very public ceremony, with a gown and a veil and with all of the solemnities of matrimony, after which Nero took this Sporus with him, carried on a litter, all decked out with ornaments and jewels and the finery normally worn by empresses, and traveled to the resort towns in Greece and Italy, Nero, “many a time, sweetly kissing him.”

Mr. President, the marriage bond as recognized in the Judeo-Christian tradition, as well as in the legal codes of the world’s most advanced societies, is the cornerstone on which the society itself depends for its moral and spiritual regeneration as that culture is handed down, father to son and mother to daughter.

Indeed thousands of years of Judeo-Christian teaching leave absolutely no doubt as to the sanctity, purpose, and reason for the union of man and woman. One only has to turn to the Old Testament and read the word of God to understand how eternal is the true definition of marriage.

Mr. President, I am rapidly approaching my 79th birthday, and I hold in my hands a Bible, the Bible that was in my home when I was a child. This is the Bible that was read to me by my foster father. It is a Bible, the cover of which having been torn and worn, has been replaced. But this is the Bible, the King James Bible. And here is what it says in the first chapter of Genesis, 27th and 28th verses:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth…

And when God used the word “multiply,” he wasn’t talking about multiplying your stocks, bonds, your bank accounts or your cattle on a thousand hills or your race horses or your acreages of land. He was talking about procreation, multiplying, populating the earth.

And after the flood, when the only humans who were left on the globe were Noah and his wife and his sons and their wives, the Bible says in chapter 9 of Genesis:

And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.

Christians also look at the Gospel of Saint Mark, chapter 10, which states:

But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife.

And they twain shall become one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Woe betide that society, Mr. President, that fails to honor that heritage and begins to blur that tradition which was laid down by the Creator in the beginning.

…This [case for same-sex marriage] reflects a demand for political correctness that has gone berserk. We live in an era in which tolerance has progressed beyond a mere call for acceptance and crossed over to become a demand for the rest of us to give up beliefs that we revere and hold most dear in order to prove our collective purity. At some point, a line must be drawn by rational men and women who are willing to say, “Enough!”

Certainly in today’s far too permissive world, traditional marriage as an institution is struggling. Divorce is far too frequent, as are male and female relationships which do not end in marriage. Certainly we do not want to launch a further assault on the institution of marriage by blurring its definition in this unwise way.

The drive for the acceptance of same-sex or same-gender ” marriage” should serve for us as an indication that we have drawn too close to the edge and that we as a people are on the verge of trying so hard to please a few that we destroy the values and the spiritual beliefs of the many. Moreover, to seek the codification of same-sex marriage into our national or State legal codes is to make a mockery of those codes themselves. Many legal scholars believe that only after a majority of society comes to a consensus on the legality or illegality of one issue or another should that issue be written down in our legal institutions. The drive for same-sex marriage is, in effect, an effort to make a sneak attack on society by encoding this aberrant behavior in legal form before society itself has decided it should be legal—a proposition which is far in the distance, if ever to be realized.

…Mr. President, for these reasons and others named by the opponents of same-sex or gender marriage, I hope that our colleagues here in the Senate will demonstrate their thorough opposition to efforts to subvert the traditional definition of “marriage” by going on record today against this very unnecessary idea.

Let us make clear that in our generation, at least, we understand the meaning and purpose of marriage and that we affirm our trust in the divine approbation—you do not have to be a preacher to say this; I am not a prophet or the son of a prophet; I am not a preacher or the son of a preacher; one does not have to be a prophet or a preacher—to affirm our trust in the divine approbation of union between a man and a woman, between a male and female for all time.

Mr. President, 41 years ago I was traveling with a House subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. I visited the city of Baghdad, the city of the Arabian Nights, where Ali Baba followed the 40 thieves through the streets, and from which Sinbad the Sailor departed on his journey to the magnetic mountain.

I asked an old Arab guide to take me down to the old Biblical city of Babylon, where one of the famous seven wonders of the world, the hanging gardens, was created. As I reached the old city of Babylon I stood on the banks of the Euphrates River, that old river that is first mentioned in the Book of Genesis, which like a thread runs through the entire Bible, the Old Testament and the New, and is mentioned again in the book of Revelation.

I stood on the site, or at least I was told I was standing on the site of where Belshazzar, the son of Nebuchadnezzar, held a great feast for 1,000 of his lords. Belshazzar, took the cups that had been stolen from the temple by Nebuchadnezzar. He and his wife and concubines and his colleagues drank from those vessels, and Belshazzar saw the hand of a man writing on the plaster of the wall, over near the candlestick, and the hand wrote “me’ne, me’ne, te’kel, uphar’sin” and the countenance of Belshazzar changed, his knees buckled, and his legs trembled beneath him. He called in his astrologers and soothsayers and magicians and said, “Tell me what that writing means,” but they were mystified. They could not interpret the writing. Then the queen told Belshazzar that there was a man in the kingdom who could interpret that writing. So, Daniel was brought before the king and told by the king that he, Daniel, would be clothed in scarlet with a golden chain around his neck, and that he would become a third partner in the kingdom if he could interpret that writing. Daniel interpreted the writing:

God hath numbered thy kingdom and finished it. Thou art found wanting. Thy kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians.

That night Belshazzar was slain by Darius the Median, and his kingdom was divided.

Mr. President, America is being weighed in the balances. If same-sex marriage is accepted, the announcement will be official, America will have said that children do not need a mother and a father, two mothers or two fathers will be just as good.

This would be a catastrophe. Much of America has lost its moorings. Norms no longer exist. We have lost our way with a speed that is awesome. What took thousands of years to build is being dismantled in a generation.

I say to my colleagues, let us take our stand. The time is now. The subject is relevant. Let us defend the oldest institution, the institution of marriage between male and female, as set forth in the Holy Bible. Else we, too, will be weighed in the balances and found wanting.

Material from Jesus-is-lord.com

March 19, 2009

Unintelligent Evolution Debunked

Help Spread the Word
var addthis_pub=”sharethisnow”;var addthis_offset_top = 0; Bookmark and Share Now

UnintelligentEvolution.com

Darwin said: “…we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator,” (Origin of Species, p488)

Unintelligent Evolution Debunked in <400 Words

The hypothesis: un-intelligence can make something intelligent, is not supported by any testable evidence, scientific principle, common sense, or even Darwin’s Origin of Species. It is useless for making testable predictions.

Darwin said: “Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man?” (Origin of Species, p. 188)

1. The scientific process was invented by and depends on intelligence. Testable, uncontradicted evidence, in diverse areas of life, confirm that it takes intelligence to make something intelligent.

“…all physical theories…break down at the beginning of the universe.”
— Stephen Hawking.

2. Mathematical infinity, singularities, and the “Big Bang” defy the laws of nature, showing scientifically that super-natural qualities, like God’s infinite nature, can exist.

3. A creator/designer/lawmaker is not intrinsically detectable when observing their design. Thus, one can’t use an undetected Creator to disprove a Creator.

4. All laws, man-made or otherwise, have common properties: They cause physical regularity. Thus, since man is made of “dust” and thus is part of the natural process, man’s creative/lawmaking abilities can be tested in determining the origin of the universe.

New hypotheses/proposed laws: a) Something intelligent is caused by something intelligent, b) Laws are made by an intelligent lawmaker, c) Laws are enforced/maintained by a law enforcer, d) Processes and machines have a designer, e) Designers/lawmakers/enforcers are not intrinsically detectable.

These principles have never been contradicted, apply universally, and are always useful for making predictions.

Thus, since intelligence, laws, machines, and processes are found in the universe, and we don’t detect a Designer, it is logical and predictable that there is an intelligent Creator. And a super-natural Creator/Lawmaker/Enforcer would be necessary to limit and maintain our natural space-time to cause the laws of nature to exist. By definition, random chance cannot create a single reasonable pattern without intelligently applied limitations/laws.

Conclusion: There is no testable evidence that a Creator was not needed to make evolution or the laws of nature, etc. Therefore, unintelligent evolution and faith in atheism are blind assumptions with no scientific basis. A plethora of diverse, uncontradicted, testable evidence demonstrates that God is logical and a super-natural Creator is necessary for the creation and laws of the universe. The Bible has the only scientifically accurate creation account. We should thank God for creating us and our universe, and seek to serve Him daily.

Fred Hoyle said: “there is a good deal of cosmology in the Bible.” (The Nature of the Universe, p.109.)

Material from Copyright: UnintelligentEvolution.com 2006-2009

God Is A Trinity – Part 2

Jesus IS GOD . For proof click on the following link
https://jasmine71.wordpress.com/2009/03/14/jesus-christ-is-god-incarnate/

The following material is from Tracy at Jesus-Is-Lord.com

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word[John 1:1], and the Holy Ghost: and THESE THREE ARE ONE. I John 5:7

John 1:1 ,14 – The Word is clearly Jesus.  In verse 14 it says  “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” .

It is amazing how much error there is in this world. Yesterday I got an e-mail from a Pentecostal who asked if I was a “Trinitarian”. The question prompted me to write this article on the tri-unity (aka the trinity) of God (I prefer the Bible word “Godhead”). This is something I’ve been meaning to do for a long while. A measure of fear came upon me as I sought to write this treatise because herein I am seeking to describe the very nature of the Most High, magnificent, dread LORD God. Nevertheless, upon careful Bible study, I can write…

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. Romans 1:19-20

I’ve heard people say that belief in the trinity means that we worship three gods. This simply reflects ignorance of the word of God. Any Christian willing to read their King James Bible with some clear eyeballs will see the truth. The LORD our God is one LORD (Deuteronomy 6:4) but He does exist in three Persons, a trinity.

If there were no other verse of the Bible testifying of the trinity, I John 5:7 would be enough for any Bible-believer to see that God consists of three Persons–the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost [1]. But this article was not written because of Bible believers. It was written to counteract the error of those who say that there is no Godhead consisting of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. A few groups come to my mind as I think of “anti-trinitarians”–

  1. Folks like the “Jesus Only” group say that only Jesus is God. They say that the Father and the Holy Ghost are only titles. Later in this treatise, we will show how each person of the Godhead (a Bible word) actually speaks in the scriptures. A “title” cannot speak. The Jesus Only people will only baptize in the name of Jesus directly contradicting Jesus’ command in Matthew 28:19,

    Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

  2. A Pentecostal sect (I’m not talking about all Pentecostals) represented at the Isaiah 58 website denies the trinity saying that God created Jesus and then Jesus created everything else (close to JW theology). This is the error of Arianism, i.e., saying that Jesus is a created being. <!– See an excerpt of their writings here –>In one article on their website, The Influence of Trinitarian Doctrine on Translations of the Bible by John David Clark, Sr., there are number of blasphemies…the author says Jesus was sinless NOT because He was God but because He was obedient. Remember that Jesus was born as a baby–how many two year olds do you know that are willingly obedient 100% of the time? I have yet to meet a sinless person and I never will. Jesus was sinless from birth, no one else can accomplish that feat. He was not an ordinary man. He is God come in the flesh. The article also says that the Father can make anybody a god and that is what He did with Jesus (reminiscent of Mormon theology). The author further attempts to destroy the truth of the word of God by saying that Bible translators purposely mistranslated “the Greek” pronouns for the Persons of the Godhead.People who spread false doctrine can make it sound correct because they wrest with the scriptures to their own destruction. We’ve got to know our Bibles intimately. The Bible is the only standard of truth. The Isaiah 58 folks wrongly divide a lot of things including what they call “speaking in tongues”.
  3. Then you have the Jehovah’s (false) Witnesses. The JWs are infamous anti-trinitarians who deny that Jesus is God. This cult follows the teachings of heretick Charles Taze Russell.

    all of these groups are dead wrong.


How can one God exist in three persons?

The Bible says that God made man in His image–but it also says that God is not a man. How then are we in His image? In many ways, one of which is we ourselves are tri-partite. Look at your own self. YOU exist in three distinct persons yet you remain one man.

  1. You have a body/flesh which is the part of you that others can see.
  2. You have a mind where you think your thoughts and make your plans.Romans 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
    Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind
  3. You have a spirit where you feel and where your essence lies.I Corinthians 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

Your body, mind and spirit are separate and distinct. My hand is a part of me, but it is not my intellect, my mind. My thoughts are a part of me, but they are not my spirit. I’ll give an example. There have been times where I’ve seen my mind and my spirit in conflict. I’m hurt. My spirit is wounded. I’m crying and my mind says “Stop crying!” but I can’t because my spirit has been wounded. Sometimes our mind and our flesh are in conflict. We know something is wrong but we are so weak and powerless that we let the flesh have its way. Paul talks about how his mind and flesh were in conflict–

Romans …7:25 So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

You are undoubtedly tripartite (body, mind, spirit) yet you remain one entity. If you and I were in the same room and I looked at you, I would only see your flesh. I could not see what you were thinking or what you were feeling. I could not see who you really are.

We bear the image of God in that we are tripartite. One of the most direct scriptures testifying of the triunity of God is 1 John 5:7:

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and THESE THREE ARE ONE.

The Godhead and our salvation.

Let’s take a look at the Godhead (a Bible word) and what each Person did in our salvation (for those of us who are saved).

  1. God the Father sent the Son.John 5:36 But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.
  2. The Son was the propitiation (payment) for our sins.I John 4:10, Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
  3. The Holy Ghost reproves us, teaches us, guides us and testifies of Jesus Christ.John 14:26, But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:“But Jesus is subject to the Father! How can He be God?”

    1 Corinthians 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

    Jesus is no less God because He is subject to the Father. Even as a human being, my body is subject to my mind. A signal must go from my brain to my hand in order for me to move it. Does that mean that my hand is not a part of me because it has to do what my mind tells it to? Nay. It is still a part of me even though it is in subjection to my mind. <!– On a spiritual level, the scriptures say that we Christians must bring our flesh under subjection.

    1 Corinthians 9:27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

    –>

    When I meditate…

    When I meditate on the triunity of God I liken,

    • the Father to the mind (The plan originates and emanates from Him. He sent the Son and told Him what to speak. John 12:49, “For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.”)
    • the Son to the body (Colossians 2:9, …in him dwelleth the fulness of the Godhead BODILY 2 Corinthians 4:6, “…the light of the knowledge of the glory of God IN THE FACE OF JESUS CHRIST.”); and,
    • the Holy Ghost to the spirit (John 14:26, 15:26, “…the Holy Ghost…the Spirit of truth.”).

    The breakdown.The scriptures call each Person of the Godhead, God. In fact, the word “Godhead” is a Bible word (Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20, Colossians 2:9).

    1. The Father is called God–Romans 15:6 That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
    2. Jesus is called God (see this article for more)–And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. 1 Timothy 3:16Hebrews 1:8 But unto the Son he [God] saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.For in him [Jesus] dwelleth ALL the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Colossians 2:9
    3. The Holy Ghost is called God–Acts 5:3-4 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? …thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD WAS manifest in the flesh, JUSTIFIED IN THE SPIRIT, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. 1 Timothy 3:16

    Each Person of the Godhead SPEAKS AUDIBLY in the Bible–

    1. God the Father SAID of Jesus in Matthew 3:17 …”This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”
    2. Jesus SAID in John 10:30, ” I and my Father are one.”
    3. The Holy Ghost SAID in Acts 13:2, …”Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.”

    Each Person of the Godhead was operative in the Old Testament–

    1. The Father–Isaiah 64:8 But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.
    2. Jesus–1 Corinthians 10:1-4, 9 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: AND THAT ROCK WAS CHRIST. Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.
    3. The Holy Ghost–Hebrews 3:7-11 Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice, Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness: When your fathers tempted me, proved ME, and saw MY WORKS forty years. Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways. So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.)

    From the very first chapter in the Bible, God makes it known that He consists of more than one Person–

    Genesis 1:26-27, And God said, LET US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness…So God created man in his own image, in the image of God [not angels. the “us” can only refer to God.] created he him;

    How about Genesis 3:22?

    And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil…

    When Isaiah had a vision of the Lord sitting upon a throne, the Lord asked him a question,

    Isaiah 6:8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for US? Then said I, Here am I; send me.

    In the Old Testament, we find that God has a Son (Proverbs 30:4, Psalm 2:7-12) and a Spirit (Isaiah 40:13, 2 Samuel 23:2, Judges 3:10, etc.). We also find that the LORD said that the LORD would send Him to the earth (Zechariah 2:10,11).

    In closing…

    The modern Bible perversions take out the word, “Godhead” and they attack the deity of Jesus Christ. One man told me that it was difficult for him to understand the deity of Jesus Christ while he read the NIV. Once he changed over to the King James Bible, it was abundantly clear. This is no surprise to me. Remarkably, the NIV oftentimes agrees with the Jehovah’s (false) Witness “Bible” in the verses it deletes. In fact, EVERY complete verse that the NIV deletes is deleted in the New World Translation (the JW version). It also deletes many of the same words and phrases including important portions of our theme verse in I John 5:7. I know this for a fact as I have copies of both contemptible books.

    Dear reader, if you are still confused about this issue, you need to pick up your King James Bible and keep reading it and talking to Jesus until you get some satisfaction. There is only one truth and the Lord Jesus will not withhold it from anybody who wants to know it.


    [1] Of course, many (if not most) modern Bible versions do not have this complete verse. In this, they agree with the Jehovah’s (false) Witness “Bible” called The New World Translation.

March 14, 2009

Jesus Christ Is God Incarnate

This post debunks the blasphemous heresy that cults are spreading; such is the complete trash written by Marcus at the following link http://marcusmaxis.wordpress.com/2009/03/14/jesus-did-not-pre-exhist/

Jesus Christ is God Incarnate

“…they shall call his name EMMANUEL, which being interpreted is, GOD WITH US.”

–MATTHEW 1:23

“…if ye believe not that I am he,
ye shall die in your sins.”

–JESUS CHRIST, JOHN 8:24

Proofs from the word of God,
The Authorized King James Bible of 1611

NOT NIV, NKJV, NASB, TLB, RSV, et al–
they corrupt this precious truth.
They are part of a ghastly array of
hundreds of Satanic modern-day Bibles.

God Jesus
God never changes.Malachi 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed. Jesus never changes.Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
God is the only Saviour.“I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.” Isaiah 43:11To the only wise God our Saviour… Jude 1:12

God our Saviour. Titus 2:10

…we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour. I Timothy 4:10

God my Saviour. Luke 1:47

Jesus is the only Saviour.…the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. 1 John 4:14…our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. II Peter 3:18

…God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. II Peter 1:1

…the Christ, the Saviour of the world. John 4:42

…the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour. Titus 1:4

a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. Luke 2:11

Neither is there salvation in any other (than Jesus): for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
–Acts 4:12

…salvation… is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.
–2 Timothy 2:10

…captain of their salvation [Jesus] perfect through sufferings.
— Heb 2:10

[Jesus]…author of eternal salvation…
— Heb 5:9

God Jesus
God created the universe and earth by Himself.I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself. Isaiah 44:24In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1:1 Jesus Christ created the universe and the earth.[U]nto the Son he saith…Thou, LORD, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands. Hebrews 1:10[B]y him (Jesus) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth…all things were created by him, and for him. Colossians 1:16

All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. John 1:3

God Jesus
God is the Word.In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God John 1:1 Jesus is the Word.the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us…John 1:14
God Jesus
God is the first and the last.I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he. Isaiah 41:4 Jesus is the first and the last.Jesus said, “Fear not; I am the first and the last:” Revelation 1:17
God Jesus
God forgives sins.[T]he Lord..forgiveth all thine iniquities… Psalm 103:2-3″[W]ho can forgive sins but God only?” Mark 2:7 Jesus forgives sins.Jesus…said…”Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.” Mark 2:5
God Jesus
God is our redeemer.[T]hou, O LORD, art our father, our redeemer.. Isaiah 63:16 Jesus redeemed us.[T]the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ…gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity.. Titus 2:13-14
God Jesus
God is one. Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD. Deuteronomy 6:4 Jesus and God are one.I and my Father are one. John 10:30

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…All things were made by him…He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not…And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us John 1:1, 3, 10, 14

Jesus saith…he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? John 14:9

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 1 John 5:7

God has a Son. [T]he LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Psalms 2:7 Jesus is God’s Son.… [Jesus] said also that God was his Father… John 5:18
God Jesus
God is the Holy OnePsalms 71:22 I will also praise thee with the psaltery, even thy truth,O my God: unto thee will I sing with the harp, O thou Holy One of Israel.Psalms 78:41 Yea, they turned back and tempted God, and limited the Holy One of Israel.

Psalms 89:18 For the LORD is our defence; and the Holy One of Israel is our king.

Isaiah 10:20 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the remnant of Israel, and such as are escaped of the house of Jacob, shall no more again stay upon him that smote them; but shall stay upon the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, in truth.

Psalms 16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. (Messianic Psalm)

Jesus is the Holy One.Acts 2:27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.3:13-14 The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go. But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;

13:34-35 And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David. Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

God Jesus
Only God is worshipped.… Then saith Jesus unto him… Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Matthew 4:10 Jesus is worshipped.While [Jesus] spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him… Matthew 9:18And again, when [God] bringeth in the firstbegotten [Jesus] into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. Hebrews 1:6

And Thomas answered and said unto [Jesus], My Lord and my God. John 20:28

God Jesus
God is Messiah.…unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder…and his name shall be called… The mighty God, The everlasting Father… Isaiah 9:6 Jesus is Messiah.The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he. John 4:25-26
God Jesus
God is from everlasting.The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved. Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting. Psalms 93:1-2 Messiah Yeshua (Jesus) is from everlasting.But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah…out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. Micah 5:2
God Jesus
Only God is glorified.I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another… Isaiah 42:8 God glorified Jesus.And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. John 17:5[A]ll men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him. John 5:23

But unto the Son he [God] saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Hebrews 1:8

God Jesus
God is ‘I am’.And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. Exodus 3:14 Jesus is ‘I am’.Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. John 8:58
God heals all diseases.Bless the LORD…who healeth all thy diseases. Psalms 103:2 Jesus heals all diseases.[Jesus] healed all that were sick. Matthew 8:16
God is the Judge of the whole earth.O Lord God, to whom vengeance belongeth; O God, to whom vengeance belongeth, shew thyself. Lift up thyself, thou judge of the earth: render a reward to the proud. Psalms 94:1-2[Abraham to God]…Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? Genesis 18:25 Jesus is the Judge of the whole earth.[T]he Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: John 5:22
God has life in Himself.[T]he Father hath life in himself; John 5:26 Jesus has life in Himself.so hath [God] given to the Son to have life in himself;In [Jesus] was life; and the life was the light of men. John 1:4
God raises the dead.[T]he Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; John 5:21 Jesus raises the dead.[T]he Son quickeneth whom he will. John 5:21

Conclusion…
Jesus Christ is GodThe scriptures bear abundant testimony that Jesus Christ is God. Some liberal preacher will say to me, “You take the Bible literally. It’s just myths.” I answer, “Yes, I believe the Bible 100%. It is the word of God. If you don’t believe it, Jesus is of no effect to you, ye are yet in your sins.”

Additional Verses:


“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD was manifest in the FLESH, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, BELIEVED ON in the world, RECEIVED UP into glory.” –1 Timothy 3:16


“But unto the SON he saith, ‘Thy throne, O GOD, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom’…And, ‘Thou, LORD, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands.'” — Hebrews 1:8, 10


“I and my Father are ONE.”

–Jesus Christ, John 10:30


“…CHRIST JESUS…being in the FORM OF GOD, thought it not robbery to be EQUAL WITH GOD: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”

–Philippians 2:5-8


“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the FATHER, THE WORD, AND THE HOLY GHOST: and THESE THREE ARE ONE.”

–1 John 5:7


“… feed the church of GOD, which he hath purchased with his OWN BLOOD.”

–Acts 20:28


“Hereby perceive we the love of GOD, because he LAID DOWN HIS LIFE for us

–1 John 3:16


“And they stoned Stephen, calling upon GOD, and saying, LORD JESUS, receive my spirit.”

–Acts 7:59


“For unto us A CHILD IS BORN, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, THE MIGHTY GOD, THE EVERLASTING FATHER, The Prince of Peace.”

–Isaiah 9:6


“And Thomas answered and said unto him [JESUS], My Lord and MY GOD.”

–John 20:28


“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and THE WORD WAS GOD. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH, AND DWELT AMONG US, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”

–John 1:1-4, 14


“Philip saith unto him, ‘Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.’ Jesus saith unto him, ‘Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me Philip? HE THAT HATH SEEN ME HATH SEEN THE FATHER; and how sayest thou then, ‘Shew us the Father?””

— John 14:8-9


“…CHRIST, who is the IMAGE OF GOD…”

–II Corinthians 4:4


“…glory of GOD in the FACE OF JESUS CHRIST.”

–II Corinthians 4:6


GOD…hath in these last days spoken unto us by his SON…who being the brightness of his glory, and the EXPRESS IMAGE OF HIS PERSON…”

–Hebrews 1:1-3


Colossians 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
1:15 WHO IS THE IMAGE OF THE INVISIBLE GOD, the firstborn* of every creature:
1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
1:19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;

*firstborn: pre-eminence in rank more than to priority in time. This can be shown in passages where the term ‘firstborn’ is used of the pre-eminent son who was not the eldest, e.g. Psalm 89:27, where David is called ‘firstborn’ although he was actually the youngest son.


“For in [Jesus] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”

— Colossians 2:9


“…they shall call his name EMMANUEL, which being interpreted is, GOD WITH US.”

–Matthew 1:23


“The voice of him [John the Baptist] that crieth in the wilderness, PREPARE ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway FOR OUR GOD.”

— Isaiah 40:3


THESE PEOPLE DID NOT UNDERSTAND THAT JESUS WAS GOD AND THOUGHT HE BLASPHEMED WHEN HE TOLD THE TRUTH.
“The Jews answered [Jesus], saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.”

— John 10:33


Addenda from justbible.com–

Some cults teach that Jesus was God’s first Creation, and that Christ then Created the universe we know. This is a verse cults use to support their false doctrine.

(“Revelation 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;”)

This verse also.

(“John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. “)

They say, “See, he was in the beginning with God.”

They will even use this verse.

(“Proverbs 8:22 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. 23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.”)

_________

Now for the Truth, from God’s word, let’s compare Scripture with Scripture.

If you only read this verse, you might think it was talking about Jesus, and that he was set up.

But if you read the chapter, you will realize who or what it is talking about.

(“Proverbs 8:12 I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions.”)

Wisdom, not Christ. The whole chapter is about wisdom personified. To make it even more clear that it is not Christ, wisdom is spoken of as female.

(“Proverbs 8:2 She standeth in the top of high places,…”)

Let’s see what the Bible says about Christ.

(“Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:”) (“John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”)

He created everything that was created, and nothing was created by anyone but him. If Christ made all things then he must have existed before everything that was created. (“Colossians 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.”) He is the one and only Creator. If he created all things then did he create himself? No, he can’t be a created being. He existed before the beginning. He is from Everlasting. (“Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.”) Jehovah God said: (“Isaiah 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.”) Jesus Christ said: (“Revelation 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.”) (“Revelation 1:18 Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.”)

Hosanna in the Highest! Jesus is Jehovah!

Paul Payton http://www.JustBible.com/


The following excerpt taken from Jesus Christ our Creator: A Biblical Defence of the Trinity by Jonathan Sarfati at http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4222.asp

Some Objections to the Trinity Answered

Despite the clear Biblical evidence for the Trinity, some cults have objections based on misunderstandings of Scripture.

  • Jesus said: ‘My Father is greater (meizon) than I’ (John 14:28). But this refers to the Father’s greater position in Heaven, not superior nature. Philippians 2:5–11 states that Jesus had equality by nature with God, but voluntarily took on the lower position of a servant. The same arguments apply to related passages about Jesus submitting to His Father’s will.

The word ‘better’ (kreitton) would have been used to describe superiority in nature if this is what had been meant. Indeed, kreitton is used to describe Jesus’ superiority in His very nature to the angels (Hebrews 1:4). The distinction can be illustrated in the human realm by the role of the Prime Minister — he is greater than us in position, but he is still a human being like us, so is not better in nature.

  • Jesus is called ‘the firstborn of every creature’ (Colossians 1:15). However, in Jewish imagery, ‘firstborn’ means ‘having the rights and special privileges belonging to the eldest child’. It refers to pre-eminence in rank more than to priority in time. This can be shown in passages where the term ‘firstborn’ is used of the pre-eminent son who was not the eldest, e.g. Psalm 89:27, where David is called ‘firstborn’ although he was actually the youngest son.

‘Firstborn’ does not mean ‘first created’; the Greek for the latter is protoktisis, while firstborn is prototokos. In fact, the verses after Colossians 1:15 show that Christ Himself is the creator of all things.

  • Jesus is Son of God. From this, some cults try to show that Jesus is somehow less than God. But in Jewish imagery, ‘the son of’ often meant ‘of the order of’ or ‘having the very nature of’. For example, ‘sons of the prophets’ meant ‘of the order of prophets’ (1 Kings 20:35); ‘sons of the singers’ meant ‘of the order of singers’ (Nehemiah 12:28). Jesus’ Jewish contemporaries understood that He was claiming to be God, which is why they wanted to kill him for blasphemy (John 19:7).

  • Jesus is the only-begotten Son’ (John 3:16). The Greek word translated ‘only-begotten’ is monogenes, which means ‘unique, ‘one of a kind’. Jesus is the unique Son of God, because he is God by His very nature (see above). Believers in Him become ‘sons of God’ by adoption (Galatians 3:26–4:7).

This is shown in the human realm by Hebrews 11:17, where Isaac is called Abraham’s ‘only begotten son’. Abraham had other sons, but Isaac was the unique son of the Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis chapters 15–18, 20), born when his parents were old.

BELIEVE ON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST AND THOU SHALT BE SAVED.

Please go to this link to read more about the LORD http://www.jasmine71.wordpress.com/2009/03/13/the-terror-of-the-lord/

Material from Tracey at Jesus-is-lord.com

March 13, 2009

The Terror Of The LORD

Christians : A great devotional from John Hagee-

  1. II Corinthians 5:11
    Summary: “Here is a verse in 2 Corinthians that I’m sure is not underlined in have many Bibles, and will not be found in many promise boxes. But it is the Word of God. Paul is writing to the Corinthians…He said: ‘Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men;…’

    The fear of the Lord is a deterrent to sin. There is no hidden meaning here.

    Exodus 20:20, Moses said: ‘God has come to prove you, house of Israel that His fear must be before your faces that you sin not.’

    There’s a growing attitude in America that God is our Father and that He is our friend and because He is our father and our friend, which is true, that somehow we are His equal. That is not true. We are not His equal. He is God. He is the Potter. We are clay. He is the shepherd. We are sheep. He commands, and we do. Don’t ever get those wires crossed.

    He shapes us according to His will. We don’t dictate to God what it is He wants us to be like. He makes us into a vessel of honor that He chooses and the end product of our life is what He sovereignly designs not what we sovereignly command. America’s church has lost the fear of the Lord. When John was on the isle of Patmos, he saw the Lord and fell at His feet as dead. And he was with the Lord for three and a half years. When he saw the angel of the Lord, he fell at his feet as dead. I often hear people say that they saw an angel and yada, yada, yada. And they had a conversation and so forth. And I said: did you have any fear? Oh, no, I didn’t at all. Then you didn’t see an angel. Because Mary saw an angel and was terrified. John saw an angel and was terrified. When you see something as powerful as the majesty as an angel of God, there’s the fear of the Lord. The church in America needs to recapture the fear of the Lord.

    If you don’t know about the terror of the Lord, read about the Great Tribulation. Read Luke 19, the story of hell. It’s a real place and real people are going there and they’re going to stay there for a long time, because of the terror of the Lord. It pays to serve the Lord. May the Lord add His blessing to the reading of the Word. – Pastor John C. Hagee

March 10, 2009

Atheists : Princes Of Fools

This (revised) repost is in response to an atheist named Bob who claims God is not obvious . His post is very foolish. He answers my comments with sheer nonsense . God will have the last say. I assure you folks. You can read his post by going to the following link: http://irrationalbob.wordpress.com/2009/0308/an-obvious-god/

Psalm 1:7—
“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction”.

A popular online satellite map labels Israeli land as part of “Palestine”…A passport application, citing the birthplace of the applicant as “Jerusalem, Israel,” is refused because officials of a foreign country will not allow “Israel” to be associated with Jerusalem…These are just two recent examples of how people deny the existence of Israel. Unfortunately, since God mentions Israel over 2,500 times in His Word, when people deny the existence of Israel, they deny the existence of God, and the Bible clearly describes those who deny God as fools. What exactly is a fool? What should a fool consider in his denial? The Fool Denies God—King David paints the portrait of the prince of fools in one sentence: “The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God” (Psalm 14:1). The heart is the seat of reason and decision making, “for as he thinks in his heart, so is he” (Prov. 23:7). The word fool comes from the word nabal, which means “moral perversity.” The original text does not say, “Man is stupid.” We have gone to the moon, transplanted hearts, and harnessed atomic power—we are not stupid. David knew that, too, and picked the perfect word to talk about those who are “morally perverse.”
He is God Almighty— The word “God” in this text is not the normal word Jehovah but El Jehovah, which refers to the God of the covenant, the God who does something for us. El refers to the almighty God, the God of authority, the ruler, the judge, and the lawgiver. David’s choice of words shows that humans do not want to know a God who demands anything; they want to be free to participate unimpeded in their sinful behavior.
Hollywood labels God as someone up there who loves us. That’s true. However, He does demand that we present our bodies as living sacrifices, “holy and acceptable to God” (Rom 12:1). We are not our own. We have been bought with a price. Paul taught that if you do not endure chastening, you are illegitimate—not a child of God (Heb. 12:5-8).
Faithlessness is foolish—A man who claims to believe in nothing still believes in something. It requires faith to be an infidel. The atheist must believe that God is not, that prayer is a waste of time, that heaven is a myth, that death is eternal unconscious existence, and that hope for a better tomorrow is weakness. The agnostic has been duped by Satan to believe the wrong things. Look at our massive universe with its innate organization and structure that work together. The fool believes that this magnificent earth is the by-product of an ecological accident. Only a fool would believe that billions of years ago the sun shone on a pond and that life began wiggling in the water, and that this life form developed lungs and legs and walked out on the land. Finally it climbed a tree and hung by its tail. Only a fool would believe that.
History Attests God—The fool denies history. Daniel asked God to show him the parade of nations that would come upon the face of the earth. God gave him a vision of the nations in the exact order in which they would appear, the personality of their leaders, and the military methods of conquest (Dan 2:7). How was that known hundreds of years before it happened?
The Risen Christ is Coming—The fool detests the Resurrection. Jesus Christ’s tomb is empty. Why? Because He is seated at the right hand of God the Father. He is alive. He is real. He is coming again in power and great glory (Matt. 24:30). How do I know God is real? I know He’s real because I can feel Him in the depths of my soul. In the Garden of Gethsemane, in the valley of the shadow of death, when the storms of life are raging, when the burdens of life are unbearable, I know He is there.
Receive Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and confess Him with your mouth, for “whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting live. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved” (John 3:16).
Material from :
(John Hagee Prophecy Study Bible, pp.596-597)

March 8, 2009

Evolution- Full Of Gaps

Evolutionists say we have evolved from monkeys . The author at
http://migration.wordpress.com/2009/03/06/becoming-human/

says “Oh, and how do I know monkeys are following me? Human vestigiality for one.”
Really ?
However, there is no hard evidence to support such wild claims as we shall see below. The following material is from evolution-facts.org :

Why there is no evidence humans evolved from anything

This chapter is based on pp. 607-663 of Origin of Life (Volume Two of our three-volume Evolution Disproved Series). Not included in this chapter are at least 137 statements by scientists. You will find them, plus much more, in the encyclopedia on this website.

In the previous chapter (Fossils and Strata), we examined the supposed evidences for the past evolution of plants and animals. In this chapter, we will view the imagined ancestry of human beings.

Following an introduction, this chapter is divided into two main sections: Hominids and Early Man.

The section on Hominids will deal with what is called prehistoric man, or what we might call “the man of evolution.” In some respects it is an addition to the chapter on fossils, although it reads more like a sideshow as it tells about fakeries such as Piltdown Man, Java Man, Tuang Man, etc.

The concluding section, Early Man, will be about actual geologic or historical evidences of ancient peoples, and is about the “man of history.” It is somewhat paralleled by information near the end of chapter 4, Age of the Earth.

The concept that we are just animals, only slightly removed from apes, means that there are no moral standards, no laws worth obeying, no future, and no hope. The realization of this terrible truth even penetrated the gloom of *Darwin’s mind at times.

“With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the minds of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”—*Charles Darwin, quoted in Francis Darwin (ed.), Life and Letters of Charles Darwin (1903; 1971 reprint), Vol. 1, p. 285.

1 – INTRODUCTION

HAVE SUCH BONES BEEN FOUND?—(*#1/28 Man’s Non-human Ancestry Unknown*) From grade school on up, children are taught about “cavemen,” and are gradually conditioned to the idea that we evolved from lower forms of life. They are also taught about the bones and skulls of our “ancestors.”

As adults, we frequently hear reports of fossil remains of ape-like humans that have been found. Each discovery has been hailed as a landmark proof of the theory of evolution. Scientists have given a name to these supposed half-man/half-ape remains; they call them hominids..

Is it really true that such skeletal remains have been found? Are we really related to apes? In this chapter, you will examine the evidence and find solid answers.

APES—(*#2/28 From Ape to Man*) Evolutionists teach two variant theories regarding man’s direct ancestor: (1) man and ape came from a common ancestor about 5-20 million years ago; (2) man descended from an ape.

Modern man is said to have evolved until about 100,000 years ago—and then he stopped evolving! It is claimed that, since that time, man has switched over from “physical evolution” to “cultural and social evolution.” This is an attempt to explain the fact that, in historical records, evolution has never been known among humans.

There is no evidence that evolution is now—or has ever—occurred among animals or plants either. Are they culturally evolving now also? In addition, it is strange that if man is essentially the same as he was a million years ago, then why did he only begin leaving writings, buildings, and artifacts during no more than the last few thousand years? Why does human history only go back less than 5,000 years?

“The search for the proverbial ‘missing link’ in man’s evolution, that holy grail of a never-dying sect of anatomists and biologists, allows speculation and myth to flourish as happily today as they did fifty years ago and more.”— *Sir Solly Zukerman, “Myth and Method in Anatomy,” in Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh (1966), Vol. 11(2), pp. 87-114.

Did man descend from the apes? Our DNA is different from that of each of the apes, monkeys, and all the rest. The number of vertebrae in our backbone is different from that in the apes. Our cranial (brain) capacity is totally different from the great apes.

Orangutans . . . . . . 275-500 cc.

Chimpanzees . . . . . 275-500 cc.

Gorillas . . . . . . . . . 340 -752 cc.

Man . . . . . . . . . . . .1100 -1700 cc.

Cranial capacity is, by itself, an important test of whether a skull is from a man or an ape.

“Since there are variations in tissues and fluids, the cranial capacity is never exactly equal to brain size, but can give an approximation. A skull’s capacity is determined by pouring seeds or buckshot into the large hole at the base of the skull (foramen magnum), then emptying the pellets into a measuring jar. The volume is usually given in cubic centimeters (cc.). Living humans have a cranial capacity ranging from about 950cc. to 1,800cc., with the average about 1,400cc.”—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 98.

COMPARING GORILLA AND MAN—*Charles Darwin said man was descended from an ape. Shown below is a typical ape, a gorilla. Carefully notice is bony structure. Notice the skulls and neck bones. Both were carefully designed by a highly-intelligent Creator, but both are very different.

Gorilla and Man

EC522.jpg (243595 bytes) CLICK TO ENLARGE

Evolution teaches that we descended from the great apes, and they, in turn, from the gibbons and other smaller apes.

Several differences between man and ape: (1) Birth weight as a percent of maternal weight is, in man, almost twice that of the great apes (5.5 vs. 2.4-4.1), but about the same or less than that found in monkeys (5-10) and in gibbons (7.5). (2) Order of eruption of teeth is the same in man and in the Old World monkeys, but it is different than that of the great apes. (3) Walking upright is quite different. Man and the gibbon walk habitually upright; the great apes do not. As with the other teachings of evolution, scientific facts are on the side of the creationists, and the evolutionists, and their incredulous theories are outside the domain of scientific fact, discovery, and law. (4) The neck hinge is at the back on man, but at the front on the ape.

The shape and arrangement of the teeth, for example, is quite different for apes and man:, for example, is quite different for apes and man:

“Many male primates have large canine teeth, which are used in fighting and defense. Where the upper canines meet, or occlude, with the lower jaw, there are spaces, or gaps, between the opposing teeth. Canine diastemas [spaces opposite large canines] are characteristic of the jaws of baboons, gorillas and monkeys. They are used as a diagnostic feature in studying fossils because they are absent in hominids [men or near-men]. A primate jaw with canine diastemas is considered probably related to apes or monkeys, not close to the human family.”—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 69.

PRIMITIVE PEOPLES—Early civilizations were advanced; but, from time to time, groups would migrate to new areas and for a time live in “stone age cultures,” until they had opportunity to build cities, plant, and engage in animal husbandry (*Science Year: 1966, p. 256).

THE THEORETICAL ANCESTRY OF MAN—Shown below are side views of the skulls, bottom views of the upper teeth, and side views of the hands—of the supposed ancestral line of mankind (Galago to Guenon, to chimpanzee, to man).

A careful comparison reveals they are each quite different from the others.

The Theoretical Ancestry of Man

EC524.jpg (201584 bytes) CLICK TO ENLARGE

In some localities, the climate and environment have been difficult enough that groups have continued down to the present time in stone-age conditions. Such racial groups can be found in New Guinea and certain other areas.

Some of these peoples have lost a knowledge of agriculture and the making of weapons, tools, or houses. They only have a few crude stone and bamboo tools, and no weapons. They live under the trees in the open, and the men spend each day gathering worms, leaves, and fruit for the family to eat.

Many anthropologists believe that those primitive “stone age” peoples are not evidence of earlier human life-forms, but rather tribes which have slipped back from the rest of us.

“Many of the so-called ‘primitive’ peoples of the world today, most of the participants agreed, may not be so primitive after all. They suggested that certain hunting tribes in Africa, Central India, South America, and the Western Pacific are not relics of the Stone Age, as had been previously thought, but instead are the ‘wreckage’ of more highly developed societies forced through various circumstances to lead a much simpler, less developed life.”—*Science Year, 1966, p. 256.

CAVEMEN—The first introduction many children have to evolution are pictures of dinosaurs and cavemen. It is true that there have been groups that have lived in caves. They wandered from warm climates to colder ones and chose to live in caves for a time before building themselves homes in a new land. But the fact that some people lived in caves for awhile does not prove evolution from one species to another.

*Diodorus Siculus, writing about 60 B.C., told of people living along the shores of the Red Sea in caves. He describes many other barbarian tribes, some of them quite primitive. Thus we see that both advanced civilizations and more backward cave cultures lived at the same time. We have no reason to conclude that the less advanced peoples were ancestors of the more advanced ones..

Archaeologists tell us that in some places in Palestine, people resembling the Neanderthal race lived in caves, while not far away in Jericho people dwelt in well-built, beautifully decorated houses.

NEANDERTHALS—(*#3/7 Neanderthal Men*) Evolutionists call the cavemen, “Neanderthals.”

In 1856 workers blasted a cave in the Neander Valley near Düsseldorf, Germany. Inside they found limb bones, pelvis, ribs, and a skull cap. The bones were examined by both scientists and evolutionists, and for a number of years all agreed that these were normal human beings. Even that ardent evolutionist and defender of *Darwin, *Thomas H. Huxley, said they belonged to people and did not prove evolution. *Rudolph Virchow, a German anatomist, said the bones were those of modern men afflicted with rickets and arthritis. Many scientists today recognize that they had bowed legs due to rickets, caused by a lack of sunlight.

In 1886, two similar skulls were found at Spy, Belgium. In the early 1900s, a number of similar specimens were found in southern France. Over a hundred specimens are now in collections.

A French paleontologist named *Marcellin Boule said they belonged to ape-like creatures, but he was severely criticized for this even by other evolutionists who said this fossil was just modern man (Homo sapiens), deformed by arthritis.

A most excellent, detailed analysis of how rickets and arthritis caused the features, peculiar to Neanderthals, was written by Ivanhoe in a 1970 issue of the scientific journal, Nature. The article is entitled, “Was Virchow Right About Neanderthal?”

“Neanderthal man may have looked like he did, not because he was closely related to the great apes, but because he had rickets, an article in the British publication Nature suggests. The diet of Neanderthal man was definitely lacking in Vitamin D.—*“Neanderthals had Rickets,” in Science Digest, February 1971, p. 35.

Neanderthal features include a somewhat larger brow ridge (the supra orbital torus), but it is known that arthritis can make this more prominent. Virchow noted that the thighbone (femur) was curved, a condition common to rickets. Lack of Vitamin D causes osteomalacia and rickets, producing a subtle facial change by increasing the size of the eye cavity (orbit), especially vertically.

*D.J.M. Wright, in 1973, showed that congenital syphilis could also have caused the kind of bone deformities found in Neanderthal specimens.

The Neanderthals apparently lived at a time when there was not as much sunlight. We know that the ice age came as a result of worldwide volcanic dust pollution. The weather in Europe at that time was cold enough that they may have stayed so much in their caves that they did not obtain enough sunlight, especially due to the overcast sky conditions.

They may also have lived longer than men do today. Biblical records indicate that those living just after the Flood (on down to Abraham and even Moses) had somewhat longer life spans than we do today. In 1973, *H. Israel explained that certain living individuals today begin to develop Neanderthaloid features—the heavy eyebrow ridges, elongated cranial vault, and so on—with extreme age. There is definite evidence that the Neanderthals were several hundred years old.

For much more information, see the book, Buried Alive, by Jack Cuozzo (1998). In it, he clearly shows that the Neanderthals were several hundred years old. Facial bones keep growing throughout life. He also discovered that the evolutionists had mismatched the upper and lower jaw, in order to make the Neanderthals look like apes.

Here are two facts you will not find in the textbooks: (1) In 1908 a typical Neanderthal skeleton was found in Poland. It had been buried in a suit of chain armor that was not yet fully rusted (”Neanderthal in Armour,” in *Nature, April 23, 1908, p. 587). (2) A Neanderthal skeleton was found in the Philippine Islands in 1910. Due to the extreme moisture of that land, it would be impossible for the skeleton to be as much as a century old (”Living Neanderthal Man,” in *Nature, December 8, 1910, p. 176).

A third interesting fact is that the Neanderthals had larger craniums than we do. They had larger brains! This indicates regression of our race from a former longer-lived, more intelligent, race rather than evolutionary progression. Brain capacity is an important indicator of whether a cranium (the part of the skull which encloses the brain) belongs to an ape or a person.

“The cranial capacity of the Neanderthal race of Homo sapiens was, on the average, equal to or even greater than that in modern man.”—*Theodosius Dobzhansky, “Changing Man,” in Science, January 27, 1967, p. 410.

“Normal human brain size is 1450-1500 ccs; Neanderthal’s is 1600 ccs. If his brow is low, his brain is larger than modern man’s.”—Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 87.

“The [Neanderthal] brain case on the average was more than 13 percent larger than that of the average of modern man.”—Erich A. von Fange, “Time Upside Down,” in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1974, p. 23.

They also had well-developed culture, art, and religion. At the present time, most scientists agree that Neanderthals were just plain people that lived in caves for a time. Unfortunately, we are still waiting for this change in thinking to be seen in children’s textbooks.

Two Neanderthal-like skulls were found in Santa Barbara, California in 1923. Researchers recognized that they were just Indian skulls.

Neanderthals were just racial types similar to ourselves.

CRO-MAGNON MAN—(*#4/4 Cro-Magnon and Rhodesian Man*) In 1868 a cave was discovered at Les Eyzies, in the Dordogne area of France. In the local dialect, cro-magnon means “big hole.” A number of skeletons have been found there, and have been hailed as the great “missing link” between man and ape.

The Cro-Magnons were truly human, possibly of a noble bearing. Some were over six feet tall, with a cranial volume somewhat larger than that of men today. This means they had more brains than men have today. Not only did they have some excellent artists among them, but they also kept astronomy records. The Cro-Magnons were normal people, not monkeys, and they provide no evidence of a transition from ape to man..

2 – HOMINIDS

BASIC QUESTIONS—We will now turn our attention to part of a lengthy line of fakes. As we view them, one by one, there are a few questions we should keep in mind:

(1) Why is it that, each time, only one specimen is found? Why not hundreds or thousands of them? If these are our ancestors, there should be millions of specimens. There are so many people alive today, there should have been large numbers of half-ape people alive during that “million years” that men are said to have lived on this planet. Indeed, evolution teaches uniformitarianism, the concept that past climates and living conditions were essentially like those we have now in the world.

(2) Why are only little pieces of bone found for each specimen—never a complete skeleton? Is this not reading a lot into almost no evidence? Or is it possible that the less found, the easier it is to try to make unfounded claims for it? (Later in this chapter we learn that if only parts of bones are found, their positions can be moved about to imitate half-ape skulls and jaws.)

(3) Although bones decay in a few years in damper regions, and in a few centuries in drier regions,—why is it that these special bones did not decay even though they are supposed to be “a million years old”? The very possibility, that these “million-year-old bones” are not supposed to have decayed, makes it all the more certain that there ought to be millions of other bones lying around belonging to our ancestors! There are millions living today, if people have lived on earth for a million years,—the earth should be filled with the bones of our ancestors!

(4) How could “million-year-old bones” possibly be found in damp earth (not encased within solid rock) in Indonesia, China, and England? Yet the evolutionists claim that such bones have been found, as we shall learn below.

In an article about the grand opening of the International Louis Leakey Memorial Institute for African Prehistory (TILLMIAP) in Nairobi, Kenya, *Lewin wrote this:

“Perhaps more than any other science, human prehistory is a highly personalized pursuit, the whole atmosphere reverberating with the repeated collisions of oversized egos. The reasons are not difficult to discover. For a start, the topic under scrutiny—human origins—is highly emotional, and there are reputations to be made and public acclaim to be savoured for people who unearth ever older putative human ancestors. But the major problem has been the pitifully small number of hominid fossils on which prehistorians exercise their imaginative talents.”—*Roger Lewin, “A New Focus for African Prehistory,” in New Scientist, September 29, 1977, p. 793.

ONLY BONE PIECES—One problem, as indicated above, is all that these experts work with is such things as jaw fragments, broken skull pieces, and parts of other bones. No complete or even half-complete skeleton, linking man with the rest of animals has ever been found. all that these experts work with is such things as jaw fragments, broken skull pieces, and parts of other bones. No complete or even half-complete skeleton, linking man with the rest of animals has ever been found. all that these experts work with is such things as jaw fragments, broken skull pieces, and parts of other bones. No complete or even half-complete skeleton, linking man with the rest of animals has ever been found. But, working with pieces collected here and there, imagination can produce most wonderful “discoveries.” In some instances, some of the pieces have been found at some distance from the rest of the fragments.

JAVA MAN—(*#5/5 Java Man*) In 1891, Java Man was found. This is a classic instance of a man searching for evidence to support a theory. This is a classic instance of a man searching for evidence to support a theory. * Eugene Dubois became a convinced evolutionist while attending a Dutch college. Dropping out of school, he began searching for fossils in Sumatra and other Dutch East Indies islands. He shipped thousands of crates of regular animal bones back to Holland, and then went to Java.

In September 1891 near the village of Trinil in a damp place by the Solo River, *Dubois found a skull cap. A year later and fifty feet from where he had found the skull cap, he found a femur. Later he found three teeth in another location in that area. *Dubois assumed that (1) all these bones were from the same individual, and (2) that they were as much as a million years old.

Nearby, in the same condition (indicating the same approximate age) he also found two human skulls (known as the Wadjak skulls), but he did not publicize this find, for they had a cranial capacity somewhat above that of modern man. Thirty-one years later, in 1922, he admitted the Wadjak skull was an ape.

Excitedly, *Dubois reported the find (the pieces of bone) as “Java Man,” and spent the rest of his life promoting this great discovery. The thigh bone was a normal human upper leg bone. As might be expected, many experts questioned whether all the bones came from the same person, and even if they did, they said they were human bones, not ape bones. But *Dubois spent most of the remainder of his life lecturing and telling people about the “half-human half-ape” bones that he had found in Java in 1891-1892. He named it Pithecanthropus erectus (erect ape-man).

British zoologists thought it was human, German experts decided it was ape, and the French conjectured that it was something between the two.

Finally, in 1907 a German expedition was sent from Berlin to Java to settle the matter. But *Dubois would not show them his “bone collection” nor help them in any way. Arriving in Java, they went over the Trinil site thoroughly, removed 10,000 cubic meters of material and 43 boxfuls of bones, and then declared it all to be wasted time. Their main discovery was that *Dubois’ Java Man bones had been taken from a depth that came from a nearby volcano. It had overflowed in the recent past and spewed forth lava, which overwhelmed and buried a number of people and animals.

Java Man

EC532.jpg (184546 bytes) CLICK TO ENLARGE

ARRANGING JAVA MAN—This sketch is an excellent illustration of how evolutionists prefer PIECES of bones, for they can fit them together in different ways to achieve their purposes.

About 15 years before his death, and after most evolutionists had become convinced that his find was nothing more than bones from a modern human,—*Dubois announced his conviction that the bones belonged to a gibbon!

School textbooks and popular books for the public continue to cite 500,000 years as the age of “Java Man,” which, admittedly, is quite an imaginary figure.

PILTDOWN MAN—(*#6/7 Piltdown Man / #10 The Story of Piltdown Man*) In 1912, Piltdown Man was found. In 1912, Piltdown Man was found. This created a great sensation in both the newspapers and halls of science when it was announced by the British Geological Society. They gave it the scientific name, Eoanthropus dawsoni. For nearly 40 years the scientific world bowed before Piltdown Man as the great key to human evolution. Only one specimen existed, when there ought to be thousands if it was really genuine.

Paintings were made of the great men who found and worked on it, and three of those men were later knighted by the king of England. Such is the stuff of glory. Ignored was the report of a dentist in 1916 who said that the teeth had been filed down by someone.

In 1953, *Joseph Weiner and *Kenneth Oakley applied a recently developed fluorine test to the bones—and found that Piltdown Man was a grand hoax! Someone had taken an ape jaw and put it with a human skull, filed the teeth somewhat, and then carefully stained it all so that the bones looked both ancient and a matching set. Imported mammalian fossils and handcrafted tools were placed nearby. It took 40 years to unravel that particular hoax. (Later in this chapter, the story is discussed in more detail.)

Piltdown Man

EC534.jpg (182547 bytes) CLICK TO ENLARGE

THE PIECES OF PILTDOWN MAN—It took several years to fabricate Piltdown Man. *Dawson and his associates carefully worked on the bones, in order to only provide certain pieces, so a half-ape, half-human appearance could be produced. The dark portions represent the pieces of bone; the white portions are plaster “reconstructions.”

This illustration, like all in this book, are taken from the author’s three-volume Evolution Disproved Series.

“Careful examination of the bone pieces [in 1953] revealed the startling information that the whole thing was a fabrication, a hoax perpetrated by Dawson, probably, to achieve recognition. The skulls were collections of pieces, some human and some not. One skull had a human skull cap but an ape lower jaw. The teeth had been filed and the front of the jaw broken off to obscure the simian [ape] origin. Some fragments used had been stained to hide the fact that the bones were not fossil, but fresh. In drilling into the bones, researchers obtained shavings rather than powder, as would be expected in truly fossilized bone.”—Harold G. Coffin, Creation: Accident or Design? (1961), p. 221.

RHODESIAN MAN—In 1921, Rhodesian Man was discovered in a cave. Anthropologists and artists set to work turning him into a half-ape, half-human sort of creature. But then a competent anatomist had the opportunity to examine it, and found that this was just a normal human being.

Further analysis revealed dental caries which modern diets tend to produce, and also a hole through the skull made by a bullet or crossbow. So Rhodesian Man was not so ancient after all.

TAUNG AFRICAN MAN—Taung African Man was found in 1924 by *Raymond Dart, when he came across the front face and lower jaw of an immature ape in a cave in the Taung limestone quarry of South Africa. He rushed to report it, accompanied by extravagant claims. A majority of scientists rejected this find, but the press loudly proclaimed it to be the “the missing link.” Today most experts dismiss it as the skull of a young ape.

“Differences due to age are especially significant with reference to the structure of the skull in apes. Very pronounced changes occur during the transition from juvenile to adult in apes, but not in Man. The skull of a juvenile ape is somewhat different from that of Man. We may remember that the first specimen of Australopithecus that was discovered by Raymond Dart, the Tuang ‘child,’ was that of a juvenile [ape]. This juvenile skull should never have been compared to those of adult apes and humans.”—Duane Gish, Evolution: the Challenge of the Fossil Record (1985), p. 178.

NEBRASKA MAN—(*#7/2 Nebraska Man*) Nebraska Man was found in 1922. Well, not exactly. A single molar tooth was found in 1922,—and called “Nebraska Man”! Based on that one tooth, an artist was told to make a picture. He did so and it went around the world. Nebraska Man was a key evidence at the Scopes trial in July 1925 in Dayton, Tennessee. In 1928, it was discovered that the tooth belonged to “an extinct pig”! In 1972, living specimens of the same pig were found in Paraguay. *Grafton Smith, one of those involved in publicizing “Nebraska Man” was knighted for his efforts in making known this fabulous find.

*Henry F. Osborn, a leading paleontologist, ridiculed William Jennings Bryan at the Scopes Trial, declaring that the tooth was “the herald of anthropoid apes in America,” and that it “speaks volumes of truth” (*H.F. Osborn, Evolution and Religion in Education, 1926, p. 103).

At the trial, two specialists in teeth at the American Museum of Natural History, said that, after careful study, the tooth was definitely from a species closer to man than to the ape. (Science 55, May 5, 1927, p. 464).

PEKING MAN—Peking Man emerged on the international scene in the 1920s. The finances of *Davidson Black were just about running out, and he needed help, when in 1927 he found a tooth near Peking, China. The *Rockefeller Foundation stepped forward and gave him $80,000 to continue research on this colossal find. So *Black continued looking and came up with a skull, copies of which are displayed today in biology laboratories. *Black named it Sinanthropus pekinensis (”China man from Peking”), and received honors from all over the world for his discovery. After his death in 1934, the Jesuit that helped prepare Piltdown Man (*Teilhard de Chardin) took over the work at the site. Then *Franz Weidenreich led out until all work stopped in 1936, because of the Japanese invasion of China.

This turned out to be some kind of town garbage dump. Although thousands of animal bones were found in this pit near Peking, only a few human skulls were found, and there was no evidence that they had evolved from anything else—even though there was 150 feet of animal bones in the pit. These human bones totaled 14 skulls in varying conditions, 11 jawbones, 147 teeth and a couple small arm bone and femur fragments, along with stone tools and carbon ash from fires.

These were human bones, but with a somewhat smaller brain capacity (1,000cc., which some people today have), and with the prominent brow ridges which we find in Neanderthals and Australopithecus.

There are races today with larger brow ridges, and some Philippine women have brow ridges,—which only men generally have. Patterns vary, but the species remains one.

“The heavy-boned [Peking] hominid skull featured prominent brow ridges and a somewhat smaller braincase (about 1,000 cc.) than modern humans (1,500 cc.).”—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 359.

A braincase of 1,000cc. is not sub-human; people today vary between 1,000 and 2,000cc., with an occasional low of 750cc., and an average of 1,500-1 ,600cc.

All the skulls disappeared during World War II, so we cannot now examine them with modern methods to check their genuineness.

Australopithecus

EC538.jpg (191027 bytes) CLICK TO ENLARGE

“Amidst the uncertainties of war-torn Beijing [earlier called Peking], it proved impossible to store them [Peking Man bones] safely with Chinese authorities, so Weidenreich finally packed them for military shipment to the United States. They were believed to be aboard the marine ship S.S. President Harrison, which was sunk in the Pacific in mid-November 1941. So Peking man’s bones may now be resting on the ocean’s bottom.

“However, there have been sporadic reports that the crate never made it onto that ill-fated ship, but was left behind in a railway station, where it was confiscated by the Japanese, stolen by looters or simply lost in the confusion.”—*Ibid.

The evidence indicates that this may have been a dining area or garbage dump, and that both animals and people had been eaten.

“But just what had been excavated? A living site? A burial ground? A place of ritual cannibalism? . . Peking man was represented mainly by skulls—hardly any postcranial material. Not a pelvis or a rib. Just skulls. And the openings at their bases, the foramens magnums, had been widened and smashed, as if someone had wanted to scoop out the brains.”—*Ibid.

Twenty years later, in the 1950s, *Ernst Mayr came up with a new name, Homo erectus, and then put a variety of bone finds (Java Man, Peking Man, and several others) into it.

It is well to keep in mind that all that remains of Peking Man are plaster casts in the United States. But plaster casts cannot be considered reliable evidence.

AUSTRALOPITHECINES—(*#8/3 Ramapithecus*; #9/17 Australopithecus*) “Australopithecus” (”southern ape”) is the name given to a variety of ape bones found in Africa. After examining the bones carefully, anthropologists have gravely announced that they come from an ancient race of pre-people who lived from 4 to 1 million years ago. These bones have been found at various African sites, including Sterkfontein, Swartkrans, Koobi Fora, Olduvai, Hadar, and Orno River. The Australopithecines, like modern apes, had a wide range of varieties. But they are all apes.

One of the most famous was named “Lucy,” and will be mentioned later on.

Some experts believe that these apes, the Australopithecines, descended from another ape, the “Ramapithecines” (”Ramapithecus” is the singular for this word), which is supposed to have lived 12 million years ago.

“No proven ancestor is known for any early Australopithecus, nor for any early Homo [habilis].”—W. Mehlert, “The Australopithecines and (Alleged) Early Man,” in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1980, p. 25.

Homo habilis is another ape. In the 1960s, *Louis Leakey found some teeth and skull fragments at Olduvai. He dated them at 1.8 million years ago and decided they belonged to the human family, therefore naming them Homo (people are classified as Homo Sapien. But many experts, including *Brace and *Metress have clearly shown that habilis was nothing more than a large-brained Australopithecus.

Brain sizes: Human beings have a brain size of about 1500 cc. (cubic centimeters). In contrast, habilis was 660 cc. Other brain sizes would be 800 cc. for Hadar, 900 cc. for Koobi Fora. Most other brain sizes are about 500 cc. The Taung and Sterkfontein skulls are around 430 cc. apiece, so an adult of their species would only be 550-600 cc. Thus on the score of size of brain case, these finds prove nothing.

An excellent and detailed article on this, which includes 13 charts and graphs, will be found in “Some Implications of Variant Cranial Capacities for the Best-preserved Australopithecine Skull Specimens,” by Gerald Duffert (Creation Research Society Quarterly, September 1983, pp. 96-104). The article reveals that there was evidence of fraudulent measurements of those ancient African skulls. Repeatedly, when initially measured a high cubic centimeter volume was announced for the skull, but later remeasurements by other investigators disclosed much smaller measurements!

“Overall, the revisionary calculations of australopithecine skulls have led to reductions of their calculated volumes. The total percentage differences amount to—157.91.”—*Op. cit., p. 100.

“The hypothesis that brain enlargement marked the beginning of man was long popular, but went out of fashion with the discovery that the endocranial volumes of the australopithecine group were not larger than those of gorillas.”—*Elwin L. Simons, Primate Evolution: An Introduction to Man’s Place in Nature (1972), p. 278.

Speaking of the Australopithecines, *J.S. Weiner commented:

“The ape-like profile of Australopithecus is so pronounced that its outline can be superimposed on that of a female chimpanzee with a remarkable closeness of fit, and in this respect and others it stands in strong contrast to modern man.”—*J.S. Weiner, The Natural History of Man (1973).

In 1957, *Ashley Montagu, a leading U.S. anthropologist, wrote that these extremely apelike creatures could not possibly have anything to do with man (*A. Montegu, Man’s First Million Years).

After the most careful research, *Oxnard and *Zuckerman have come to the conclusion that Australopithecus is an ape, and not human, and not a transition between the two.

“Dr. Charles Oxnard and Sir Solly Zuckerman were leaders in the development of a powerful multivariate analysis procedure. This computerized technique simultaneously performs millions of comparisons on hundreds of corresponding dimensions of the bones of living apes, humans, and the australopithecines. Their verdict, that the australopithecines are not intermediate between man and living apes, is quite different from the more subjective and less analytical visual techniques of most anthropologists. This technique, however, has not yet been applied to the most recent type of australopithecine, commonly known as ‘Lucy.’ “—Walter T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 39.

LUCY—Lucy, one of the most recent of the Australopithecus finds, was unearthed by *Donald C. Johanson at Hadar, Ethiopia in 1975. He dated it at 3 million years B.P. [Before Present]. In 1979, *Johanson and *White claimed that Lucy came under an ape/man classification (Australopithecus afarensis). But even before that startling announcement, the situation did not look too good for Lucy. In 1976, *Johanson said that “Lucy has massive V-shaped jaws in contrast to man(*National Geographic Magazine, 150:790-810). In 1981, he said that she was “embarrassingly un-Homo like” (Science 81, 2(2):53-55). Time magazine reported in 1977 that Lucy had a tiny skull, a head like an ape, a braincase size the same as that of a chimp—450 cc. and “was surprisingly short legged” (*Time, November 7, 1979, pp. 68-69).

*Dr. Yves Coppens, appearing on BBC-TV in 1982, stated that Lucy’s skull was like that of an ape.

In 1983, *Jeremy Cherfas said that Lucy’s ankle bone (talus) tilts backward like a gorilla, instead of forward as in human beings who need it so to walk upright, and concluded that the differences between her and human beings are “unmistakable” (*J. Cherfas, New Scientist, (97:172 [1982]).

*Susman and *Stern of New York University carefully examined Lucy and said her thumb was apelike, her toes long and curved for tree climbing, and “she probably nested in the trees and lived like other monkeys” (Bible Science Newsletter, 1982, p. 4).

Several scientists have decided that the bones of Lucy come from two different sources. Commenting on this, *Peter Andrews, of the British Museum of Natural History, said this:

“To complicate matters further, some researchers believe that the afarensis sample [Lucy] is really a mixture of two separate species. The most convincing evidence for this is based on characteristics of the knee and elbow joints.”—*Peter Andrews, “The Descent of Man,” in New Scientist, 102:24 (1984).

Regarding those knee joints, *Owen Lovejoy, *Richard Leakey’s highly qualified associate (an anatomist), declared at a 1979 lecture in the United States that a multivariate analysis of Lucy’s knee joints revealed her to be an ape

So whether Lucy’s bones belong to one creature or two, they are both apes.

*Johanson’s theory about Lucy is based on an assumption linking two fossils 1,000 miles [1,609 km] apart:

“Although the Lucy fossils were initially dated at three million years, *Johanson had announced them as 3.5 million because he said the species was ‘the same’ as a skull found by *Mary Leakey at Laetoli, Tanzania. By proposing *Mary Leakey’s find as the ‘type specimen’ for Australopithecus afarensis, he was identifying Lucy with another fossil 1,000 miles [1,609 km] from the Afar [in northern Ethiopia] and half a million years older! *Mary thought the two not at all the same and refused to have any part of linking her specimen with [*Johanson’s] afarensis . . She announced that she strongly resented Johanson’s ‘appropriating’ her find, her reputation and the older date to lend authority to Lucy. Thus began the bitter, persistent feud between Johanson and the Leakeys.”—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 285.

*Johanson, himself, finally decided that Lucy was only an ape.

“Johanson himself originally described the fossils as Homo, a species of man, but soon after changed his mind based on the assessment of his colleague, Tim White. They now describe the bones as too ape-like in the jaws, teeth and skull to be considered Homo, yet also sufficiently distinct from other, later australopithecines to warrant their own species.”—*Ibid.

Mehlert sums it up.

“The evidence . . makes it overwhelmingly likely that Lucy was no more than a variety of pigmy chimpanzee, and walked the same way (awkwardly upright on occasions, but mostly quadrupedal). The ‘evidence’ for the alleged transformation from ape to man is extremely unconvincing.”—A.W. Mehlert, news note, Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1985, p. 145.

NUTCRACKER MAN—Nutcracker Man was found in 1959 by *Louis Leakey in the Olduvai Gorge in East Africa, and is one of the Australopithecines, discussed above.

SKULL 1470—In 1972, *Richard Leakey announced what he thought to be a human-like fossil skull, and gave it an astonishing date of 2.8 million years. The official name of this find is KNM-ER 1470, but it is commonly known as “Skull 1470.” If this is a human skull, then it would pre-date all the man/ape bones said to be its ancestors.

Both Leakey and other hominid experts think it looks essentially like a modern small-brained person. It was pieced together from several fragments.

“In 1972, Bernard Ngeneo, of Richard Leakey’s ‘Hominid Gang,’ found a similar but much more complete skull at East Turkana. It is generally known as the ‘1470’ skull, from its accession number at the Kenya National Museum.

“The 1470 skull was pieced together by Richard Leakey’s wife Meave and several anatomists from dozens of fragments—a jig jaw puzzle that took six weeks to assemble. Dated at 1.89 million years old, with a cranial capacity of 750cc., Leakey believes it is the oldest fossil of a true human ancestor. In his view, the australopithecines and other hominid fossils were sidebranches

“Leakey fought hard to win a place for his 1470 (along with the previous habiline fragments found at Olduvai) because most anthropologists thought the skull was simply ‘too modern-looking’ to be as ancient as he at first claimed.”—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 217.

Here was *Leakey’s original announcement in regard to this skull:

“Either we toss out this skull or we toss out our theories of early man . . [It] leaves in ruins the notion that all early fossils can be arranged in an orderly sequence of evolutionary change.”—*Richard E. Leakey, “Skull 1470,” National Geographic, June 1973, p. 819.

But it should be understood that modern, living, small-brained (750cc.) human beings have existed, so the finding of a 750cc. Skull 1470 is no reason to think it is an “ancestor” of mankind.

“Human qualities of mind, Keith proclaimed, can only appear when brain volume is at least 750 cubic centimeters, a point nicknamed ‘Keith’s rubicon’ (dividing line) . . How did he arrive at the ‘magic’ number of 750cc.? It was the smallest functioning modern human brain anatomists had seen at the time [when *Sir Arthur Keith, one of those involved in the Piltdown hoax, was alive earlier in this century].”—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 249.

Early comments on Skull 1470 included these:

“The finding of ‘Skull 1470,’ which Richard Leakey says is nearly three million years old and really human, will shatter the whole evolutionary story built upon so-called hominoids, if anthropologists accept Leakey’s pronouncements. An artist for the National Geographic Magazine obligingly painted a reconstruction which is very human indeed. The only thing peculiar is the overly flat nose—and the shape of the nose cannot be ascertained from a skull.”—News note, Creation Research Society Quarterly, September 1974, p. 131.

“The latest reports of Richard Leakey are startling, and, if verified, will reduce to a shambles the presently held schemes of evolutionists concerning man’s origins.”—Duane T. Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Say No! (1973), p. 105.

After considering the implications of the situation, the skull was carefully redated, lest it be thought that human beings had lived 2.8 million years ago. The experts did not want it to predate its ancestors!

“The 1470 Skull discovered by Richard Leakey in 1972 was originally ‘dated’ at 2.6 million years. However, many anthropologists objected because then the more modern 1470 Skull would predate all its supposed ancestors. Thus 1470 was ‘redated’ until a more ‘acceptable’ estimate of 1.8 million years was adopted.”—John N. Moore, “Teaching About Origin Questions: Origin of Human Beings,” in Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1986, p. 185.

This skull may have been that of a microcephalic human, a teenage human, or an ape..

It lacks the prominent eyebrow ridges common to Homo erectus (Java Man, etc.), many Neanderthals, and Australopithecus. Some fossil apes had brow ridges; others lacked them.

The brow ridge slopes back abruptly as does that of simians (apes), but it is somewhat more rounded.

The size of the braincase is equivalent to that of a teenager, or a microcephalic, and somewhat larger than an ape: 775 cc. A gorilla averages 500 cc., and an australopithecus only 422 to 530 cc. The average brain size for modern man is 1450 cc. But there are exceptions to this:

Microcephalics are human beings which have brains as small as 775 cc. This condition is a birth defect which, though unfortunate, occurs from time to time.

“Humans with microcephaly are quite subnormal in intelligence, but they still show specifically human behavioral patterns.”—Marvin Lubenow, “Evolutionary Reversals: the Latest Problem Facing Stratigraphy and Evolutionary Phylogeny,” in Bible-Science Newsletter, 14(1 1):1-4 (1976).

“None of these early hominids had brains approaching the size of modern human ones. The indices of encephalization show that australopithecines were only slightly above the great apes in relative brain size and even the largest cranium [Skull 1470] is about as close to apes as it is to humans.”—*Henry M. McHenry, “Fossils and the Mosaic Nature of Human Evolution,” in Science 190(4213):425-431.

It is significant that the lower jaw was not found. This would have told a lot. The face of the skull, below the eyes, protrudes forward in the manner of apes. The jaw and molars are somewhat larger than the average modern human’s, but not larger than those of some people. There appears to be a lack of bony support beneath the nostrils, such as is found in gorillas. Facial skeletons are relatively larger in apes than the braincase size. Skull 1470 is about midway in this category, and thus not like that of humans. It also has a long upper lip area, such as apes have.

Viewing three skulls from the rear (an adult human, Skull 1470, and Australopithecus) we find that Skull 1470 has similarities to that of Australopithecus.

John Cuozzo, in a 4-page report complete with two drawings and seven photographs (Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1977, pp. 173-176), provides intriguing evidence for his contention that Skull 1470 may have been that of an early teenage human being, and that damage to the skull after death caused the ape-like characteristics in the nasal opening, etc.

Frankly, there is not enough data available to say much more. There is no doubt that the special human qualities of speech, etc., would not reveal themselves in a skull.

It is also a fact that evolutionists eagerly desire evidence that man descended from an ape-like ancestor. Yet over a hundred years of searching has not disclosed this, even though, as we learned in the chapter on Fossils and Strata, millions of fossils have been dug out of the ground and examined. If mankind had indeed descended from another creature, there should be abundant fossil evidence. But it is not there.

BONE INVENTORY—(*#12 Major Hominid Discoveries*) Most all of these supposed ancestral bones of man have been catalogued in a *Time-Life book, The Missing Link, Volume 2 in the “Emergence of Man Series,” published in 1972. It has a complete listing of all the Australopithecine finds up to the end of 1971.

Although over 1400 specimens are given, most are little more than scraps of bone or isolated teeth. Not one complete skeleton of one individual exists. All that anthropologists have in their ancestral closet are bits and pieces.

“The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!”—*Science Digest 90, May 1982, p. 44.

As listed in the Ancient Man appendix on our website (*#12*), the number of bone pieces which have been found worldwide is incredibly small! You will want to turn to the appendix and look over the listing for yourself. There is little wonder that each new piece of bone receives so many newspaper stories!

“The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table . . The collection is so tantalisingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmentary and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present.”—*John Reader, New Scientist 89, March 26, 1981, p. 802.

“I don’t want to pour too much scorn on paleontologists, but if you were to spend your life picking up bones and finding little fragments of head and little fragments of jaw, there’s a very strong desire there to exaggerate the importance of those fragments.”—*Greg Kirby, address at meeting of Biology Teachers’ Association, South Australia, 1976 [Flinders University professor].

“The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone.”—*Timothy White, quoted in New Scientist 98, April 28, 1983, p. 199 [University of California anthropologist].

WHAT IT ALL MEANS—All the evidence from bones and fossils gives only one report: Mankind did not evolve from any lower form of life. Evolutionists have found no support anywhere for their theory that man came from apes, monkeys, mollusks, germs, or anything else.

Here are five special reasons why mankind did not descend from apes. We cover several of these in detail in other chapters:

“1. Abrupt appearance of fossil forms separated by systematic gaps between fossil forms. 2. Distinctness of DNA, chemical components, and pattern (design) of morphological similarities. 3. Laws of Mendel: combination, recombination always results in easily recognized plant, animal forms; conclusive evidence of fixed reproductive patterns (designs). 4. Distinctness of human self-conscious awareness, and metaphysical concerns. 5. Distinctness of human personality involving moral and ethical concern; reflective, symbolic, abstract, conceptual thought.”—John N. Moore, “Teaching about Origin Questions: Origin of Human Beings,” in Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1986, p. 184 (emphasis his).

Anthropologists maintain that man descended from an unknown ancestor, and *Darwin said it was an ape. If we descended from an ape, why do we have a different number of vertebrae in our backbones than apes have? Why is our cranial capacity totally different? And, most important, why is our DNA distinctly different than apes, monkeys, and all species of wildlife?

They say that they have found the bones of our hominid ancestors. Why then have only a table-top full of bones been found? There ought to be millions of bones, if they lived for hundreds of thousands of years before us. And why do all those bones look only like ape bones or human bones—and never like both?

They say that modern evolutionary anthropology is based on the pioneering discoveries of six men: * Eugene Dubois and his Java Man, *Charles Dawson’s Piltdown Man, the 1921 Rhodesian Man, the 1922 Nebraska Man, *Raymond *Dart’s Taung African Man, and *Davidson Black’s Peking Man. But the finds of *Dubois and *Dawson were later discovered to be outright fakes. Rhodesian and Taung Man were found to be apes. Nebraska Man turned out to be a pig tooth, and Peking Man was just human bones.
And are not very old after all.

You have just completed

Chapter 13 Ancient Man Part 1

EVOLUTION FACTS, INC.

– BOX 300 – ALTAMONT, TN. 37301

Older Posts »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.