Michael Mize – There is No Such Thing as an Atheist
Gary Wayne – The Chinese Dragon King: Nephilim Bloodline
Kevin DeYoung – If the Bible Is So Clear, Why Are There So Many Different Interpretations?
North Carolina State University has recently conducted research revealing an “oversight in a radioisotope dating technique used to date everything from meteorites to geologic samples,” which means that “scientists have likely overestimated the ages of many samples.” This research was done in the university’s Nuclear Engineering Department by Associate Professor Robert Hayes and a report published in the journal Nuclear Technology.
To claim a key flaw has been found in the radioisotope dating methodology, which underpins the millions-of-years edifice of all modern secular geology, is quite extraordinary. Such an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence to back it up, and since this is a complicated subject, it requires some preliminary explanations so that the details of this claim and the evidence for it can be readily understood.
Atoms, Isotopes, and Radioisotopes
Every chemical element is made up of atoms unique to it. All atoms consist of a nucleus around which electrons (negatively-charged particles) orbit. Within the nucleus of nearly all atoms are protons and neutrons, positively-charged and neutral particles respectively.
All the atoms in each chemical element have the same number of protons in their nuclei. That number is called the atomic number of the element. Element 1 is hydrogen with one proton in its nucleus. Its chemical symbol is H. One of the heaviest elements is uranium with 92 protons in its nucleus and symbol U.
Ever had someone tell you, ‘You’re missing the whole point! The purpose of Genesis is to teach that God is our Creator. We should not be divisive over the small details. Genesis teaches the theological truth of “Who?” and “Why?” not about the “How?” and “When?”’ Or else they say that the Bible is a book for faith and morality, not history.
An obvious answer is, why should we trust Genesis when it says God created if we can’t trust it on the details? After all, Jesus told Nicodemus, ‘I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?’ (John 3:12). So if Genesis can’t be trusted on an earthly thing, such as Earth’s age, the sequence of creative acts upon it, or the Flood that covered it, then why trust it on a heavenly thing such as who the Creator was? Also, if Genesis 1 were merely meant to tell us that God is creator, then why simply not stop at verse 1, all that’s necessary to state this?
However, the critic has overlooked something even more important—Genesis is written as real history. This is why the rest of the Bible treats the events, people and time sequences as real history, not parables, poetry or allegory.
What does the rest of Scripture say?
The age and unique creation of Adam and Eve mattered to Jesus
When teaching about marriage, Jesus said:
‘But at the beginning of creation God “made them male and female. … For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” So they are no longer two, but one’ (Mark 10:6–8).
Here, Jesus quoted Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24 about a real first man and first woman who became the first couple, and this was the basis for marriage between one man and one woman today. Not a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, or more than two people. Evolution teaches instead that a whole population of humans evolved from a population of ape-like creatures.
God made dirt — before He cursed it along with the significant amount of life present in the soil. In one acre of land, there is an equivalent biomass of an octopus in terms of the microbial life. The life in the earth is so immense that it directly affects crop yields and the food chain. While it’s often swept under the rug, we shouldn’t dismiss the amazing design found in soil particulates.
Mud Pies and Microbes
I remember making mud pies as a child for my mom—she didn’t like them too much. Pie making was always the best just after a good rain, but I had no idea that I was covering my hands in germs. Though I now know there was probably other biomaterial present in the soil (e.g., the organic matter called humus), back then the combination always warranted washing my germy hands when I went inside. In terms of our overall health, there is a fine balance between all the germs in the dirt and all the other stuff that it is made of. Dirt is dirty, but not in the ways that we often think.
While earth is typically considered to be only rocks and dirt, life is also abundant in soil. But we cannot observe all the living things in the soil with our eyes—they require a microscope for us to see them.
We know that “in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1); however, Scripture is silent on using words like bacterium, germ, or microbial ecology. Therefore, though no one can assertively determine which day God actually created bacteria, we have a pretty good idea when bacteria were brought into existence.3 There is no doubt that God created “everything” and called it “very good,” so that must also include bacteria. Since we find bacteria with a purpose in dirt and we know that God created the dirt, we know that God created the dirt with microbes as well.
The commonly accepted big bang model supposedly determines the history of the universe precisely (see Figure 1). Yet to do so, it is filled with unprovable fudge factors. That may sound like an exaggerated claim, but it seems to be the state of cosmology today.
This situation has come about because the unverifiable starting assumptions are inherently wrong! Some brave physicists have had the temerity to challenge the ruling paradigm — the standard big bang ΛCDM inflation cosmology. One of those is Prof. Richard Lieu, Department Chair, Astrophysics, University of Alabama, who wrote:
“Cosmology is not even astrophysics: all the principal assumptions in this field are unverified (or unverifiable) in the laboratory … .” [emphasis added]
He goes on to say that this is “because the Universe offers no control experiment, …” He means that the same observations can be interpreted in several different ways. Because there are no other universes to compare ours with, you can’t determine absolutely which is the correct answer. That means, we do not know what a typical universe should look like. As a result cosmologists today are inventing all sorts of stuff that has just the right properties to make their theories work, but it is stuff that has never been observed in the lab. They have become “comfortable with inventing unknowns to explain the unknown”, says Lieu.
In the preceding chapters several important propositions have been thoroughly established.
1. Genesis 1–11 clearly teaches, and the rest of the Bible confirms, that God supernaturally created Adam from dust and Eve from his rib (not from any pre-existing living creature) on the sixth literal 24-hour day of history a little over 6,000 years ago.
2. All humans are uniquely made in the image of God and all humans who have ever lived are descended from Adam and Eve, regardless of their language, skin color, eye shape, etc. There is only one race — Adam’s race.
3. Until the 20th century, this was the universal belief of Bible-believing Christians about Adam (except for some in the late 19th century who after denying any chronological value to the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 pushed back the date of Adam’s creation several tens of thousands of years).
4. The fossil evidence does not support the idea of human evolution, but rather confirms Genesis. Controlled by a naturalistic (i.e., atheistic) worldview, the evolutionists have misinterpreted the evidence. The public has been deceived by imaginative art and relentless dogmatic claims that do not survive careful scrutiny.
If you want to change a society, you merely need to get the public to shift an idea from the category of “unthinkable” to “policy.” You’ll know you’ve been successful when the formerly unthinkable has become public school policy.
For instance, 50 years ago it would have been unthinkable for an elementary school teacher to contradict the claim that sexual intercourse was reserved for one man and one woman within the bonds of marriage. Today, in many if not most public schools, it’s now school policy that teaching that notion to children—and claiming any violation of that standard is immoral—is cause for termination.
The sexual revolution has so subverted public opinion and Christian-influenced morality that teachings about sex that were previously considered immoral or even unthinkable eventually found their way into the classroom as school policy. But a quicker and more effective route to societal change is to simply reverse the process: force an issue to become school policy and eventually opposition to it will become unthinkable.
Coming to a School Near You…
That is the shift that is being attempted today on the issue of transgenderism in schools. A prime example is in the state of New York, where Gov. Andrew Cuomo issued a letter to the state’s department of education that there can be no dissent in schools about “a student’s actual or perceived gender, their gender identity or expression.” If a biological male student wants to shower with the girls in their locker room, he must be allowed to do so since, as Cuomo makes clear, “we do not and will not tolerate discrimination in the State of New York.”
The insinuation is as clear as the policy: Children who do not wish to be exposed to the genitalia of the opposite sex are nothing more than bigots.* The intention is to inculcate children with the belief that they are “harassing” or “bullying” transgender students by being uncomfortable with such exposure. A few parents and students will naturally protest, of course. But in time all students and most parents will get the message: If you don’t want to be called a bigot, don’t complain about exposure to the naked bodies of the opposite sex.
Examples of complexity in the natural world are not hard to come by. Living creatures all are examples of irreducible complexity. This phenomenon is well known in design engineering and refers to the fact that there are mechanisms which only work when everything works together. This is certainly true in the natural world as many mechanisms right down to the molecular world show that this is the case. The cell will not work without all the DNA machinery being in place, as very ably demonstrated by Behe. One of the best examples of complexity which defies a series of “gradual” changes is flight. Dawkins sought to try to justify such an idea of gradually producing flight, but showed very little understanding of the fundamental engineering principles involved in aerodynamics and control. He even suggested there may be wingless ancestors that, living in water, raised their gills to make primitive sails which then evolved into the flapping wings of insects as they got lifted by the wind.3 Insect flight and flapping motion is far more than having appendages to the body, and all engineers know this.
For controlled, heavier-than-air flight, there are four fundamental requirements: (1) A correct wing shape to give a lower air pressure on the upper surface; (2) a large enough wing area to support the weight; (3) some means of propulsion or gliding; and (4) extra surfaces, or a means of altering the main surfaces, in order to change direction and speed.
Discrepancies plague the human evolutionary timeline.
If you listen closely to newscasters, schoolteachers, and evolutionary experts when they talk about our evolutionary history, you will notice discrepancies in the numbers they quote. Do those discrepancies bother you? Or do you, like many people, simply hear another really big number and move on with your day? Well, those discrepancies are pretty big, and they bother scientists who are concerned about the accuracy of their claims.
Now keep in mind that evolutionary scientists are not in the habit of questioning whether or not apelike-creature-to-human evolution occurred. Nor are they in the habit of attributing the sorts of differences that distinguish us modern humans from Neanderthals to a cause any different from that which makes us different from our supposed ape cousins. But, with complete confidence that we are the products of millions of years of evolution, they would like to know when the key events in our evolutionary history happened.
To that end, the Guardian recently published an in-depth article summarizing the human-dating dilemma and announcing its imminent resolution. The publication titled this celebration of an apparent evolutionary victory “Why We’re Closer Than Ever to a Timeline for Human Evolution.”
Let’s have a look at the molecular clock credited with resolving the timeline and see if, as the Guardian proclaims, we really are “closer than ever to a timeline for human evolution.” Are we, as the Guardian claims, nearly ready to salute a chimp and know “the correct number of ‘greats’” between his great-great-so-many-greats grandpappy and ours?
After years of agonizing over the literal days of creation in Genesis, I decided to spend time researching this problem at the London School of Jewish Studies in Hendon, England. After all, I thought, why shouldn’t I go to the natural Jewish vine for some answers? (Of course, one should be cautious to distinguish between real exegesis of the Word of God, which must always overrule the ‘traditions of men’ [Mark 7:13], and we’ll see some examples. Although not covered here, it applies especially to modern Judaic revisionism of the Messianic passages after the rise of Christianity.1)
On my arrival, a Yeshiva (religious study group) was in process among the Orthodox students. But I was shown to the library where a bearded Rabbi pulled out the best conservative commentaries on the days of creation, along with the Talmud. This is the code of Jewish oral tradition interpreting the Torah or the Law of Moses, completed in the 5th century AD.
Eager to study, I took notes from these learned works, which had been compiled by some of the most eminent scholars in Judaism. It was a strange experience being surrounded by Orthodox Jews meticulously scrutinizing ancient books. After days of careful study of the conservative Rabbinical scholars, I had my answer: the days of Genesis were literal.
I turned to Rabbi Abraham Ben Meir Ibn Ezra’s commentary on Genesis. This scholar (c. 1089–1167) from medieval Spain is highly regarded in traditional Rabbinical circles, and his commentary was highly commended by Maimonides (1135–1204). Maimonides (a.k.a. Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, or the acronym Rambam) has been considered the key figure in Judaism since the Temple was destroyed in AD 70.