Evolution, The Religion Of Fools. In One Picture.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.  For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.  For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.  Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. — Romans 1:18-23

I was on one of my hikes out in the desert when I came upon this scene way out in the middle of nowhere that caused me to marvel (you can click on it to enlarge it in a new window):

P1000062 - Copy

I state for the record that I did not assemble this or see it assembled.  It was there when I walked a route that I walked for the very first time.  It simply stands as a brute fact.  It is what it is.  The only question is how it came to be the way you see it.

Somehow, in some amazing demonstration of the power of evolutionary forces, a strong wind managed to lift one rock atop another.  And then, without knocking that rock over off its new evolutionary perch, the wind managed to stack two rocks side-by-side on top of the second rock.  Amazingly – and the miracle of evolution is clearly on display here – a fifth rock, and then a sixth rock and a seventh rock and then ultimately an eighth rock, were all successively and successfully stacked one atop the other by this marvelous Darwinian breeze.

Now, maybe you believe that.  Or maybe you’re not what the Bible labels “the fool” (Psalm 14:1) and you immediately realize what a total pile – LITERALLY – of abject idiocy the notion  that this rock pile just happened all by itself clearly is.

I truly did marvel when I saw this pile of rocks and contemplated the implications.  Because I was very well immediately aware that SOMEBODY had very clearly put this together from the determination of a mind to create something where without a mind and a decision to create there would have been nothing.  And everybody who isn’t a complete fool clearly knows that somebody assembled this monument; it didn’t just “happen,” it didn’t “evolve” by some random natural process.  And as I shall shortly demonstrate with something called “science,” I don’t care how many billion years you want to wave at this monument to claim that it happened by itself.  The longer you want to think it took, the worse the fool you are.  This is a one-to-one, apples-to-apples, direct comparison: the rock pile did not happen by random, chaotic chance, everyone knows, because it is simply too complex of a structure to have happened all by itself.  And the whole universe is SO much more complex that it is beyond foolish to claim that it happened by itself when we all know that something as simple as this stupid rock pile couldn’t have happened by ITSELF.

And this principle is true throughout any legitimate science.  I was watching a documentary on Julius Caesar and his defeat of the Gallic chieftain Vercingetorix at the Battle of Alesia in 52BC.  Archeologists were able to fully discover the fortifications at Alesia by flying overhead and doing detailed photography of the area.  And what they did was look for lines that were simply too symmetrical or too straight for nature alone to have been able to produce.  Because they were demonstrating something called “common sense” that every evolutionist and atheist has none of whatsoever.

It’s stupid enough to claim that something that nature cannot produce was somehow produced by nature, such as the straight, symmetrical lines revealing ancient Roman fortifications or the rock altar I photographed.  But it is a level of stupidity beyond “dumb and dumber” to say that while nature cannot produce symmetry or design, it can somehow produce the infinitely GREATER complexity of the people who produce the things that even fools understand that nature cannot produce.  Think about it; the atheist, the secular humanist believes that obviously nature cannot produce the simplest kind of order or symmetry, but these same fools believe as an act of RELIGIOUS FAITH AND NOTHING ELSE that nature can produce infinitely MORE complex order and symmetry in the so-called “evolution of life” that is GOOGOLPLEXIANS of times more complex.  If nature cannot even produce so much as a straight line or a simple pile of rocks, please do not insult your own intelligence by claiming it somehow produced the Mona Lisa.

I’ve got another one for you to riddle me.  There’s just an awful lot more to reality than the eye can see.  Things are vastly more complex than they appear.  Science itself has taught us that.  See, according to science, we’re a collection of particles, right?  Atoms, molecules.  There are 70 trillion cells in a human body consisting of about 7*1027 atoms (that’s a 7 followed by 27 zeros!).  Atoms are by definition mostly made up of empty space.  And so for one thing, we’re not solid.  Truth to tell, we’re actually FAR more water (about 60%) than anything else.  So then why are we solid?  You’ve got theories, but we don’t really know.  “We are spirits in a material world” is as plausible as anything “scientific.”  And then what about this one: given that we’re a collection of particles, how or why are we a whole?  How can this collection of particles consisting of atoms numbering in the 7 followed by 27 zeroes be one thing?  And what about this notion of “I”: “I” am one thing!  How can “I” be an “I’, let alone one thing as opposed to many different parts?  What about this notion of consciousness and individuality?  How does science explain that?  Have you ever heard a scientist attempt to explain these things to you?

You see, just as we can know BY SCIENCE that we CANNOT see everything with our physical senses – such as atoms, particles and molecules – we can also know that there is a realm beyond science, beyond the physical.  We can know that just as there is a realm smaller than our senses, that there is also a realm bigger than our senses.  There must be a realm that is beyond science, beyond the physical, a realm that has been called “supernatural,” but is surely metaphysical, above and beyond the physical.

That’s why the Bible uses the word “fool” to describe such people who deny God and the supernatural.  It’s frankly beyond merely idiotic.

Atheists and evolutionists mock religious people for believing that a transcendent, personal, omnipotent God can do all things.  But what do THEY believe in?  The too-idiotic-to-even-qualify-as-“fairy-tale” notion that if something sits around for long enough, a MIRACLE will somehow happen.  And no, boys and girls, time doesn’t possess magic power.  All time does is sit there and do nothing.

If I were to employ the evolutionists’ argument back at them, it would go like this: I promise that I will refute evolution and prove that it is bogus.  In 4.5 billion years.  Because all they do is turn that very same argument upside down and claim that something somehow happened that long ago when no one can even begin to prove that it did.  It’s an assertion, nothing more.

Which invites the question as to the nature of ALL of “nature.”  We don’t just have the problem of explaining how the pile of rocks somehow got assembled into that neat little monument.  We have the problem of the origin of the individual rocks themselves according to the Big Bang theory of cosmology held by nearly all physicists today: all matter, all time, all energy and all space suddenly exploded into existence at some finite point of time in the past very much as if Someone had declared, “Let there be light.”  It’s as Robert Jastrow described it in God and the Astronomers: “For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”  Those rocks in that picture did not always exist; they came into being because they were caused to exist by something (or of course Someone).  And it happened in a manner that confirms the account of the Book of Genesis chapter one.  Jastrow – one of the great scientific minds of the 20th century – also stated: “Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.”  And after that “Let there be light” declaration that same  Somebody somehow – and we weren’t there to see Who or how any more than we saw who assembled the pile of rocks in the above picture – stacked a pile of rocks on top of one another to assemble our planet, our solar system, our galaxy, all living things.   And the fact that we are here as a result is very properly indeed the result of “supernatural forces” and properly called a MIRACLE.

Atheists and evolutionists once confidently declared that there were a septillion (that’s a one followed by 24 zeros) planets capable of life.  These arrogant, ostensibly knowledgeable fools were so wrong it is unreal.  Every single time they send taxpayer-funded prayers to the heavens in the form of enormously  powerful radio communications, satellites, unmanned spacecraft like Voyager, etc., it amounts to perennially unanswered prayers to their god or gods.  Just as I contemplated the pile of rocks on the trail and ask the question, ‘How did this get here?  Could it just have happened?’, we must likewise contemplate the brute fact of the universe that we observe: the nature of the fine tuning of the universe is mindboggling when you consider it.  How did the fact of universe and the fact of life get happen?  Did Someone create it – which is the prima facie conclusion of any creature possessing common sense – or did it just assemble itself the way we know that pile of rocks in the picture above could never have assembled itself?  When you realize how many things had to happen in precise sequence and with infinite precision for us to be here at all – rather than residents from those septillion planets visiting us or contacting us the way we’re trying to contact “them” – it should occur to you to question why we are here at all.  How did just the right sort of solar system to contain the planet that contains the rocks that yielded all the necessary building blocks for life get here?  How did just the right sort of moon that orbits the planet in just the right way to result in a planet that contains the rocks get here?  How did just the right sort of star with just the right characteristics to result in just the right sort of solar system and just the right moon result in just the right planet to contain those rocks get here?  And I mean, I can go on and on and on.  Because the level of complexity within the system of the universe is so far beyond mind-boggling that it is obviously the result of supernatural mind determining to create.

Do you see my point here?  When you can’t even so much as glance at a simple pile of what, seven rocks arranged one atop the other, what kind of fool do you have to believe to think that ALL of the many INFINITELY MORE COMPLEX systems and sub-systems that compose the universe all around that rock pile got here by chance without an Intelligent Designer?

When you start to think about the system of the universe and the billions of sub-systems and the trillions of sub-processes within the system, you have to mock the fool who believes that all that we see around us just somehow happened by chance.  Because that fool is in all actuality a far worse fool than the fool who would look at the stack of rocks above and conclude that it happened by chance.

Look at that picture above again and consider the complexity of those seven rocks piled one atop the other and realize that it is far too complex a system to have happened by any act of random nature.  And then go look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself if you are not vastly more complex than that system which you obviously know was intelligently designed.

And then keep reading to comprehend just how appalling the case for godless evolution truly is and the foolish idiocy you have to believe in order to deny the reality of God.

Allow me to give you the flavor of what actual hard SCIENCE really says about the possibility of life happening by chance:

The Time Problem

To go from a bacterium to people is less of a step than to go from a mixture of amino acids to a bacterium. — Lynn Margulis (21.5)

The only premise that all of the precellular theories share is that it would be an extremely long time before the first bacterial cells evolved. If precellular life somehow got going, it could then conceivably begin to crank out, by some precellular process, random strings of nucleotides and amino acids, trying to luck into a gene or a protein with advantages which would lead to bacterial life. There is no evidence in life today of anything that produces huge quantities of new, random strings of nucleotides or amino acids, some of which are advantageous. But if precellular life did that, it would need lots of time to create any useful genes or proteins. How long would it need? After making some helpful assumptions we can get the ratio of actual, useful proteins to all possible random proteins up to something like one in 10^500 (ten to the 500th power). So it would take, barring incredible luck, something like 10^500 trials to probably find one. Imagine that every cubic quarter-inch of ocean in the world contains ten billion precellular ribosomes. Imagine that each ribosome produces proteins at ten trials per minute (about the speed that a working ribosome in a bacterial cell manufactures proteins). Even then, it would take about 10^450 years to probably make one useful protein. But Earth was formed only about 4.6 x 10^9 years ago. The amount of time available for this hypothetical protein creation process was maybe a few hundred million or ~10^8 years. And now, to make a cell, we need not just one protein, but a minimum of several hundred.

So even if we allow precellular life, there is a problem getting from there to proteins, genes and cells. The random production of proteins does not succeed as an explanation. Other intermediate, unspecified stages must be imagined. We could call these stages post-precellular life. By whatever means, life’s evolution through these stages would have to be time-consuming.

“Time-consuming.”  There’s a rather gigantic understatement for you.  Try to write that number down: 10^450 years, which is 10 with 450 zeroes after it.  That is a number that makes our national debt even after the Obama spendaholic presidency look so infinitesimal that any kid ought to easily be able to solve our national debt crisis with his lunch money by comparison.  And it makes the length of time since our universe exploded into being some 14 billion years ago (1.4×10^10 years) and the earth formed 4.6 billion (4.6×10^9) yeas ago look tiny and insignificant by comparison.

4.6 billion years ago might seem like a long time: 4.6 with nine zeros after it.  That is, unless you compare it to the number “1” followed by a MINIMUM of FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY freaking zeroes.  We’re not talking about billions, we’re not talking about trillions, we’re talking about a number so vast only a true mathematician has ever even HEARD of it before: a Novenquadragintacentillion, at least according to our dictionary of Big Ass Numbers.

There’s just not enough time literally in the whole universe.  And that 10^450  years is just for ONE protein when you need to multiply that 10^450 years by several hundred proteins.  That last sentence of the first paragraph is actually staggeringly optimistic, considering that in this case “several hundred” is actually SEVERAL THOUSAND:

“A typical bacterium requires more than 4,000 proteins for growth and reproduction.”

So understand the dilemma: you need random trials requiring 10^450  years to form just ONE protein; but you actually would need at least another 3,999 more proteins that will take just as long to randomly generate after you finally generate that first one.  Each one is going to take you about another 10^450  years’ worth of random trials to generate!  And finally after 10^450  a.k.a. a novenquadragintacentillion years multiplied by “more than 4,000 proteins,” just what are the odds that that first protein that you made would still exist so many trillions times trillions times trillions of years later???  Just what are the odds that you would have all 4,000-plus proteins available at one time and in one place to make the assembly of that simplest cell possible???

How long did it take whoever built that rock pile to complete the job?  I’m guessing a few minutes.  Because our Creator God gave that person a miraculous mind and a fearfully and wonderfully made body to think about creating it and then an amazing body to actually make it happen.  But the simple scientific FACT of the matter is that, no matter how long you want to claim the universe is, it STILL wasn’t anywhere NEAR enough time in the universe even times a million billion trillion to “evolve” the simplest cell there is apart from that Creator.

If you don’t believe that rock pile assembled itself by purely natural processes without any Intelligence, but you believe that everything else – including humanity – got here the very way you deny that that rock pile got here, the Bible is truly right to call you “fool.”

You should begin to understand that “evolution” is the most fanciful fairy tale there IS.  When we talk about evolution, we’re talking about something that not only didn’t happen, but COULDN’T even POSSIBLY have happened.  At least if you accept actual SCIENCE rather than the atheistic philosophical nonsense masquerading as “science.”

You need to comprehend this: legitimate science can’t even begin to explain how just the proteins necessary for the simplest bacteria cell evolved by chance.  And that the fool who postulates that “evolution” created the magnificent human mind that is so much more sophisticated and miraculous than any supercomputer ever designed is someone who seems to lack so much as that bacteria cell for a brain.  Because we’re no longer talking about the simplest bacteria cell the origins of which science can’t begin to explain or even explain away; we’re talking about a brain jam-packed with billions of infinitely more complex cells in infinitely more complex arrays.

And the human brain has an apparently very clear purpose: to allow a soul the ability to freely interact with its body.  But that of course, is denied by evolutionists:

“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” [Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1]

There is absolutely no question to even a fool like Richard Dawkins that life very much has “the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”  But being a fool, he proceeds to simply dismiss the fact that the Bible declares in Romans chapter 1 and verse 18-23: “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to themFor since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.  For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.  Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.”

Yes, all complicated things were very self-evidently designed for a purpose.  And that Designer is God.  Don’t be a fool and deny the obvious.  It is OBVIOUS to even Richard Dawkins that the universe was “designed” for “a purpose.”  The prima facie case is obvious and if you want to claim that there is no Creator you must prove beyond any reasonable doubt that there is NOT a Creator, rather than telling a bunch of fanciful atheist fairy tales to describe how things happened the way the most primitive cave men told stories about how we have wind because the trees are moving and swaying and creating the ensuing wind by their actions.  The burden of proof necessarily falls upon the unbeliever; but they have performed a bait-and-switch by the most disingenuous means.

You’ve got your pseudo-scientists who claim that this amounts to some argument about “science” versus religion.  I call them “pseudo-scientists” because if you understand the history of science, these people are very clearly speaking out of complete ignorance – and legitimate scientists never speak out of such ignorance.  The so-called “science” these pseudo-scientist ideologues embrace is every bit as “religious” as any serpent-handling Pentecostal who ever lived.

Please realize what junk “science” becomes when it becomes an ideological tool.  The fact of the matter is – as I have documented before – is that modern science founded upon the scientific method uniquely came from and depended upon the Judeo-Christian worldview.  It is a simple historically verifiable fact that: The first modern scientist and the discoverer of the scientific method upon which modern science is based was a product of Christendom and a publicly avowed Christian who described his faith in Christianity – and its influence on his approach to science – in his writings.  That the discoverer of every single modern branch of science was a publicly confessed Christian.  I say it again, not only was the first true scientist in the modern sense who discovered the scientific method a publicly confessing Christian, but so were the discovers of every single major branch of modern science. And that is because the very presuppositions necessary FOR the rise of science itself uniquely came out of the Christian worldview:

J.P. Moreland (Source: The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer, p. 17) listed some of the philosophical presuppositions – based on the Judeo-Christian worldview – that were necessary for the foundation of science:

1. the existence of a theory-independent, external world

2. the orderly nature of the external world

3. the knowability of the external world

4. the existence of truth

5. the laws of logic

6. the reliability of human cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as truth-gatherers and as a source of justified beliefs in our intellectual environment

7. the adequacy of language to describe the world

8. the existence of values used in science (e.g., “test theories fairly and report test results honestly”)

9. the uniformity of nature and induction

10. the existence of numbers

You can’t use physical science to arrive at or derive the laws of logic; they are self-evident only within highly particular worldviews that are uniquely based on the presuppositional and foundational belief in the supernatural and the divine.  We today have the denunciation of “Western logic” by the postmodern movement.  Because Western logic is based upon the reality of “either/or.”  And the moment you allow Western logic profoundly powerful “either/or” arguments such as the Kalam Cosmological Argument begin to pour in and drown the godless fire of atheist thought.  Our Western laws of logic were derived from Greek thought, which was highly DUALISTIC.  There were the gods and there were men.  There were the non-material abstract and yet substantial Forms and there was the material world of change.  You cannot accept the laws of logic and not accept the distinction between the material and immateraial world and the existence of the immaterial world which bequeathed us with the Form of logic that we aspire toward without being a pathologically dishonest hypocrite and an intellectual parasite.  And as you contemplate the existence of “truth,” recognize that either our minds and our brains were created by a Truth-Knowing Being to know truth, or they are the result of a entirely random and unguided process and therefore no reason whatsoever to assert the capacity to possess “truth.”  And in the same way, when it comes to the rise of science, any notion of genuine science pitted against genuine religion is a total fraud and fabrication.  Modern science uniquely arose out of Judeo-Christian presuppositions from a geographical place and a philosophical worldview called Christendom.  It arose out of no other worldview and never could have arisen out of any materialistic worldview.  Science was allowed to rise because Judeo-Christian-worldview inspired men – ALL publicly professing Christians – believed that there was an orderly universe that was created to operate on orderly principles and that we as image-bearers of the Creator possessed the mental faculties to marvel at the work of the Creator and “thinking God’s thoughts after Him” – as Isaac Newton, the greatest scientist who ever lived, declared.

Atheistic evolutionists are frauds and thieves who usurped an entire foundation upon which logic and science originated.  True logic and true science mock these people, because true logic and true science come uniquely from a worldview that they reject.  Their feet are firmly planted in midair.  But these people are such complete fools that they walk like idiots without a foundation toward nothing.

This ideology-masquerading-as-“science” also amounts to a bait-and-switch regarding science as “testable” or “falsifiable” versus “creationism” which is NOT testable.  Charles Darwin gave as the standard of “testable” evolutionary “science” this definition:

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.  But I can find no such case.” — Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, p. 158

But a brilliant lawyer exposed that “falsifiability” standard for the total fraud that it is merely by replacing a couple of words in the otherwise exact same definition:

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by God, my God theory would absolutely break down.”

And she then proceeded to ask, “Would the Darwin believers take that standard as a scientific test for God?”  Would they accept the burden of proving that “God could not possibly have created” us???

Let’s consider the human brain and its implications on the foolish theory of evolution.  Are you a meat puppet mindlessly and soullessly dancing to the tune of random evolutionary forces?  Atheist-ideologue pseudo-science declares yes, you are:

“But it should be pointed out that consistent atheism, which represents itself to be the most rational and logical of all approaches to reality, is in actuality completely self defeating and incapable of logical defense. That is to say, if indeed all matter has combined by mere chance, unguided by any Higher Power of Transcendental Intelligence, then it necessarily follows that the molecules of the human brain are also the product of mere chance. In other words, we think the way we do simply because the atoms and molecules of our brain tissue happen to have combined in the way they have, totally without transcendental guidance or control. So then even the philosophies of men, their system of logic and all their approaches to reality are the result of mere fortuity. There is no absolute validity to any argument advanced by the atheist against the position of theism.

On the basis of his won presuppositions, the atheist completely cancels himself out, for on his own premises his arguments are without any absolute validity. By his own confession he thinks the way he does simply because the atoms in his brain happen to combine the way they do. If this is so, he cannot honestly say that his view is any more valid than the contrary view of his opponent. His basic postulates are self contradictory and self defeating; for when he asserts that there are no absolutes, he thereby is asserting a very dogmatic absolute. Nor can he logically disprove the existence of God without resorting to a logic that depends on the existence of God for its validity. Apart from such a transcendent guarantor of the validity of logic, any attempts at logic or argumentation are simply manifestations of the behavior of the collocation of molecules that make up the thinker’s brain.”  — Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, 1982, pp. 55-56

Is whatever thought that is floating around in your head merely determined by how your random brain atoms randomly arranged themselves?  Or do you think rational thoughts because you are the rational, thinking image of a rational thinking God according to Genesis 1:26-27 who said “Come, let us reason together” (Isaiah 1:18).

Which are you?

I can go on literally all day citing evidence that scientists and atheist/secular humanist philosophers claim that human free will is nothing more than some philosophically useless illusion, and that you are nothing but a meat puppet entirely conditioned by your DNA and your environment.  Both atheistic-ideologue pseudo-science and the atheistic philosophy based on that atheistic-ideologue pseudo-science readily dismiss the notion of anything legitimately called genuine free human will.  It is nothing more than an illusion, so please go back to your pasture, all ye mindless and soulless herd animals, and chew your cud until slaughter-time.

As Richard Dawkins asserted in his atheist tome The Blind Watchmaker, “DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”  And YOU neither know nor care and you dance to the music the way a puppet jerked around by strings uncontrollably dances to whatever random notion randomly enters your randomly-generated skull.

If we are in fact created in the image of an invisible Creator God, then we are NOT meat puppets, for the God who created us in His image is no meat puppet.  If there is no God and we are products of mindless, soulless evolution, then we are and can be nothing else and nothing more than meat puppets.

If it is a fact that you are nothing but a herd-animal meat-puppet with no mind and no soul, there is necessarily another terrifying truth: you have no moral responsibility.  And the worst people in the history of the world by any “moral” standard have no moral responsibility, either.  And this terrifying fact is necessarily true both on an individual level and on a societal level.

On the individual level, if free will is an illusion, as any materialistic system science or philosophy asserts, then how can you hold someone criminally or morally responsible for their actions that result from no free will of the person who is committing them?

Further, if Darwinism is true, then Social Darwinism is necessarily entailed: if natural selection is your process for evolving into better creatures, in which the fittest members of a species survive, and both inferior members of species and inferior species themselves must perish to give way to the stronger, then why should it not be so in how we govern the world?  Why shouldn’t we help evolution by eradicating the unfit so that the more fit can better survive in a world of finite and scarce resources?  Adolf Hitler understood that under any consistent Darwinian view, there were the predators and there were the victims – and he made his Germany a predator.  Maybe you want to argue that it is false that big fish eat the smaller fish or that lions eat the gazelles.  But you’re wrong because they really do.  Nazi Germany was without any question THE most “scientific” society on earth during the time leading up to World War II, and a consistent Darwinism was precisely their philosophy: if Darwinism is in fact “science,” then have the damn courage to embrace the crystal clear implications of that science and embrace some form of Nazism or Stalinism which both embraced evolution and thus made horror such as has never before been seen possible.

A guiding philosophy of Nazism was completely and fundamentally compatible with any “science” of Darwinism that had the decency to be consistent: they called it “lebensunwertes leben,” or life unworthy to be lived.  And they killed off all members of society that were not sufficiently fit to be adequate Darwinists.  And if you are an evolutionist and you do not think the precise same way, you are either a coward and a hypocrite for not having the courage to be consistent and live out your view or you are tantamount to a slack-jawed idiot for not having the ability to logically comprehend the ramifications of your own worldview.

You can mock that above link between godless Darwinism and Nazism all you want, evolutionist.  But first I ask you to explain how your teacher Charles Darwin – the full title of whose book was, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” – precludes you from believing yourself to belong to a “favoured” master race and then possessing the justification to wipe out all the other races you compete with “in the struggle for life.”  And I’ll explain how my Teacher Jesus of Nazareth precludes me from doing so.

Adolf Hitler made the mindless German crowds who supported him the victims of his Darwinism, stating, “If the German Volk is not strong enough and is not sufficiently prepared to offer its own blood for its existence, it should cease to exist and be destroyed by a stronger power.”  That is an inherently and implicitly and intrinsically Darwinian argument.  And that fact is not altered now as intellectual frauds like Richard Dawkins go back and rewrite history to expunge the incredibly tragic results of Darwinism being applied to the actual world and society.  Modern Darwinists want to use their hypocritical and self-contradictory system to violently club God to death, then drop that club and say, “Now that Darwinism has killed God and religion, let’s not live as if our system that says life is a struggle for existence in which only the fittest survive and the weak are a threat to the rest of the herd is actually true.”

And Adolf Hitler clearly stated in his Mein Kampf that:

“The objection may very well be raised that such phenomena in world history [the necessity of intolerance] arise for the most part from specifically Jewish modes of thought, in fact, that this type of intolerance and fanaticism positively embodies the Jewish nature” [Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 454].

Friedrich Nietzsche – a patron saint of Nazism – had prior to Hitler correctly pointed out the fact that:

“Christianity, sprung from Jewish roots and comprehensible only as a growth on this soil, represents the counter-movement to any morality of breeding, of race, of privilege: it is the anti-Aryan religion par excellence” [Nietzsche, “The Twilight of the Idols”].

That same Darwinian theme of Judaism and Christianity thwarting Darwinian supremacy would be echoed more than a century later by the historian who wrote the book on Christian martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who would die in the death camps:

Regarding Hitler’s hatred of Christianity, Metaxas further writes, “Hitler’s attitude toward Christianity was that it was a great heap of mystical out-of-date nonsense. But what annoyed Hitler was not that it was nonsense, but that it was nonsense that did not help him get ahead. According to Hitler, Christianity preached “meekness and flabbiness,” and this was simply not useful to the National Socialist ideology, which preached “ruthlessness and strength.” In time, he felt that the churches would change their ideology. He would see to it.”

And so, a good Nazi was a Gottglaubiger.  Rather than putting “Christian” on personnel forms they wrote down “Gottlaubig” – representing a “vague pseudo-philosophical religiosity” – to indicate that, while they were not “godless communists,” they were most certainly not “Christian.”  And unlike Christians and Jews with their weak and insipid morality, they were Nazis who were willing to grab the Darwinian bull by the horns and do whatever was necessary, no matter how morally heinous.  Just as any true Darwinist would do if he or she had the courage of conviction.

Hitler used the word “Christian” in his some of his speeches before deluded crowds of Germans many of whom had long-since largely abandoned true religion under the profound influence of a generation of profoundly anti-religious and in particular anti-Jewish and anti-Christian German scholars such as the well-known Friedrich Delitzsch who wrote:

“the Old Testament was full of deceptions of all kinds – a veritable hodge-podge of erroneous, incredible, undependable figures, including those of Biblical chronology…. in short, a book full of intentional and unintentional deceptions (in part, self-deceptions), a very dangerous book in the use of which the greatest care is necessary.”

But to his inner circle Hitler said very different things than what he said publicly.

Hitler described to them that “after difficult inner struggles I had freed myself of my remaining childhood religious conceptions. I feel as refreshed now as a foal on a meadow” (Ernst Helmreich, “The German Churches Under Hitler,” p. 285).

Joseph Goebbels was one of Hitler’s inner circle to whom Hitler revealed his true beliefs:

The Fuhrer is a man totally attuned to antiquity. He hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity. According to Schopenhauer, Christianity and syphilis have made humanity unhappy and unfree. What a difference between the benevolent, smiling Zeus and the pain-wracked, crucified Christ. The ancient peoples’ view of God was also much nobler and more humane than the Christians’. What a difference between a gloomy cathedral and a light, airy ancient temple. He describes life in ancient Rome: clarity, greatness, monumentality. The most wonderful republic in history. We would feel no disappointment, he believes, if we were now suddenly to be transported to this old, eternal city.”

Goebbels also notes in a diary entry in 1939 a conversation in which Hitler had “expressed his revulsion against Christianity. He wished that the time were ripe for him to be able to openly express that. Christianity had corrupted and infected the entire world of antiquity.” [Elke Frölich. 1997-2008. Die Tagebücher von Joseph Goebbels. Munich: K. G. Sauer. Teil I, v. 6, p. 272].

Hitler also said, “Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.” [Hitler’s Table Talk, Enigma Books; 3rd edition October 1, 2000, p. 343].

Author Konrad Heiden quoted Hitler as stating, “We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany.” [Heiden, Konrad A History of National Socialism, A.A. Knopf, 1935, p. 100].

Albert Speer – another Nazi who worked extremely closely with Hitler – reports in his memoirs of a similar statement made by Hitler:

You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?” [Albert Speer. 1971. Inside the Third Reich Translated by Richard Winston, Clara Winston, Eugene Davidson. New York: Macmillan. p 143; Reprinted in 1997. Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs. New York: Simon and Schuster. p. 96. ISBN 0-684-82949-5].

Adolf Hitler sounds like an atheist to me.  He certainly rabidly abandoned Judeo-Christianity as few other human beings ever have.  And while the Nazis were cynically willing to exploit Christianity or anything else they could twist to manipulate people into following them, it was put in the form of “Almighty God has created the German people to be a race of supermen” kind of garbage.  But think about that for a second: created by WHO and by WHAT PROCESS?  Certainly NOT created by the “Jewish God” of the Old Testament of the Christian Bible; and certainly NOT created according to the creation account in the “Jewish Bible’s” book of Genesis.  So WHO created and by WHAT process?  By Darwinian evolution, of course.  God threw His random evolutionary dice and His throw came up Nazi snake eyes.  And Hitler would tell you that lie and any other lie he needed to tell you to twist your mind into following him.

Proto-Nazi atheist and secular humanist philosophers such as Friedrich Nietzsche and Friedrich Delitzsch gave way to full-blown Nazis such as Martin Heidegger and Ezra Pound.  And the toxic atheistic and secular humanistic evolutionist ideas of these toxic men had toxic consequences.

Furthermore, the most brutal form of human government that ever existed was communism otherwise known as “state atheism.”  Every single officially state atheist society has been a violent and vicious opponent of human dignity and human freedom.  Every single one.

Political and economic Marxim was based on the following atheist/secular humanist premise:

Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.

And the result of atheism/secular humanism being allowed to dominate was a boot stomping on hundreds of millions of human faces since its rise.  It is the most murderous system of thought ever devised by man, with well over 110 million human beings murdered by their own atheist governments just during peacetime alone.  The continual bait and switch of these purveyors which the Word of God according to Colossians 2:8 warn us about –

“Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual forces of this world, rather than from Christ”

– continue to bear murderous fruit.  They seize upon the imperfect results of imperfect political system that depend upon an imperfect pursuit of a religious worldview, and replace it with a demonic system in which the Government BECOMES God and proceeds to crush everything and every one that gets in its way.

Nazism and Stalinism have one thing in common: godless socialism.  The intent of these movements was to replace God with Government in which Government became the Savior and the people were encouraged if not viciously driven away from embracing any worldview that had a place for a Creator God in it.

And today we have people every bit as wicked and every bit as willing to commit acts of incredible vicious genocide as Hitler or Stalin or Mao (socialists all) – and I’m not talking about insane jihadist Muslims such as fill the ranks of Islamic State.  No, I’m talking about leftist environmentalists who have top access to leftist politicians.  Listen to some of their quotes:

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.” – Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

Mankind is the most dangerous, destructive, selfish and unethical animal on the earth.”
– Michael Fox, vice-president of The Humane Society

Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.”
– John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor.”
– Sir James Lovelock, Healing Gaia

The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”
– Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point

A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.”
United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment

A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb

A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
– Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor [and major DEMOCRAT PARTY DONOR]

Realize the left today would murder people on a scale that would even shock Adolf Hitler, if they could just get the power they wanted.

You don’t even so much as qualify as a cow to these people.  I mean, in their own words, you don’t even make it to the level of a slug.  At least we merit equal status to a cancer tumor.  I don’t think even the Jews under Hitler got that little respect.

These rabid leftists evolutionists believe that earth randomly evolved.  And in order to protect the result of random evolution they believe they must wipe out somewhere between half and 95% of all randomly evolved homo sapiens.  You can bet none of these people are going to volunteer to walk into the gas chambers first, mind you.

Realize “the absurdity of life without God.”  Realize that apart from God, there is and can be no true meaning, purpose or value in your existence.  And that is precisely how the state atheists and the secular humanists treat you the moment they get power over you: like a farm animal that can be slaughtered and should be slaughtered.  And simple factual history proves it.  It’s happened before and it will very likely happen again.  The ideology might change, but the evolutionary/Darwinian worldview that underlies it guarantees the same contempt for the dignity of the human spirit that we’ve seen before.

Whatever you are, what you are not is either morally intelligent or in any way wise.  Rather, as Romans 1:22 puts it, “Professing yourself to be wise, you became a FOOL.”  A fool so captured by empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense, as Colossians 2:8 points out, that you abandoned the real world for an atheist fairy tale in order to childishly ignore the authority of God and thereby ignore His moral commands.

Unbelief does not come from intellectual causes or objective analysis of the data or any form of legitimate science.  In fact science exists BECAUSE of the Judeo-Christian worldview and it arose in Christendom based on the Judeo-Christian worldview and the Judeo-Christian worldview alone.  Rather, unbelief is a moral collapse by which wicked people do not seek God because they refuse to be responsible to Him and acknowledge that He alone is sovereign and He is the Creator and they the creatures.  They resent any limitation on their ability to do as they please, or, according to their meat-puppet, herd-animal doctrine, whatever random string of atoms masquerading as a thought or a desire compels them or stimulates them to mindlessly act out.  They resent any limitations to their mindless DNA-puppet-dangling animalistic autonomy.  They refuse to honor any moral boundaries that they despise and so they therefore refuse to acknowledge the Boundary Maker.

What they do is not wise, it is not intelligent, it is not moral and it is not “science.”

So if you want to think of me as being an idiot for believing in God, that’s just fine; provided you realize that YOU are the idiot of all idiots and frankly THE most idiotic idiot who ever lived in comparison to people like me.

I mean, please don’t sneer condescendingly at me for believing in God given the fact that evolution is a fairy tale for fools.

A theologian, commenting on Romans chapter one, wrote:

“Truth quietly remains what it is amid all the clamor and he shouting against it and in the end judges every man.” [R.C.H. Lenski, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, p. 93]

If there is no God, then there is no “truth” anymore than there is a “creation,” because “truth” is however the hell the molecules in our brains randomly arranged themselves to believe.  If the human mind is mrely a randomly-generated product of natural selection, then the ideas in our minds were selected purely for their survival value and NOT for their truth-value.  And so your “truth” – whatever the hell that is – is by definition of evolution no less random than mine.   Evolutionary epistemology commits suicide.  If Darwin’s theory of natural selection is true, “the human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth,” as John Gray expressed it.  But consider the ramification and the ensuing contradiction of Darwinism: if Darwin’s theory is true, then it “serves evolutionary success, not truth.” In other words, if Darwin’s theory is true, then it is not true.  It has been a simple game for philosophers to devise all sorts of scenarios which demonstrate that something might facilitate “evolutionary success” and yet be patently false beliefs.  I can document prominient politicians and even journalists such as Walter Lippmann – who said that “The common interests very largely elude public opinion entirely and can be managed only by a specialized class whose personal interests reach beyond the locality” – to document that people have been inspired to take actions that others deemed the best course based entirely on propaganda or lies.  Lets let smart people deceive stupid people into policies for their won good, they say.  We just saw that that described as being the mindset behind ObamaCare from one of its chief architects.  There is absolutely no connection whatsoever between something that could be an “evolutionary success” and “truth.”  And in fact history is replete with examples demonstrating that “truth” has frequently been done away with to pave the way for something that has been passed off as being for the people’s own good.  This is an epistemological box that evolution simply cannot climb out of no matter how many billions of years of fervent, fanatical faith in random evolutionary processes they want to throw at the abandonment of truth inherent in their theory.

And unless you can patiently exlain to me how Hitler and Stalin were somehow bad atheists, and unless you can establish whatever the hell “evolutionary morality” is, then it stands as a simple FACT that the murderer is no different from the martyr and the rapist is no more praiseworthy or blameworthy than then humanitarian since none of us are truly free to be truly responsible for our actions.  And in fact if evolution is true, then rape is actually PRAISEWORTHY as we “dance to DNA’s music.”

Question: Why do we as individuals rape, murder and sleep around?  Becauserape is (in the vernacular of evolutionary biology) an adaptation, a trait encoded by genes that confers an advantage on anyone who possesses them. Back in the late Pleistocene epoch 100,000 years ago, men who carried rape genes had a reproductive and evolutionary edge over men who did not: they sired children not only with willing mates, but also with unwilling ones, allowing them to leave more offspring (also carrying rape genes) who were similarly more likely to survive and reproduce, unto the nth generation. That would be us. And that is why we carry rape genes today. The family trees of prehistoric men lacking rape genes petered out.”  Darwinism is “a scientific idea that, if true, consigns traditions of self-restraint, loyalty, the very basis of family life, to the shredder.”  Now go ye and do likewise.  Unless something inside of you screams “NO!  I will NOT live in accordance with that terrible, wicked, demonic theory of Darwinian evolution!”

Rape is merely one more horrible, demonic thing that evolution justifies, if not necessitates, in the same vein that it justifies/necessitates social Darwinism, Nazism, Stalinism and every OTHER horrible “-ism.”  And all under the guise of “science.”

If this were anything resembling true science evolution and atheism and secular humanism would have been thrown onto the ash-heap of failed ideas.  But we’re NOT talking about anything resembling legitimate science; we’re talking about a fanatical religious movement masquerading as science.

That was one of the powerful realizations I had years ago as I considered the FACT that if there is no God, then all things are equally possible, and there ARE no boundaries and no morals and that everything I believe is right and everything I believe is wrong are nothing but mere arbitrary constructs of a constantly evolving culture.  And I am NOT the kind of thing that dances to the music of DNA or follows some constantly-shifting morality like some mindless farm animal as Hollywood tells me what is right and wrong this morning; I am a human being created in the image of a rational, moral God Who will one day hold me accountable for what I did in this world that He created and placed me in.

Unlike the animals, who see it get dark when I watch a beautiful sunset, I have eternity in my heart.  Which means I can contemplate my existence after I die and leave this earth.

I am NOT an evolutionary meat-puppet farm animal; I can know the truth.  And the truth can set me free.

I believe in God as the reason we have a universe containing life in it because it’s every bit as obvious and every bit as self-explanatory as it is for me to believe that those rocks in that pile didn’t happen by themselves.  God designed us to be free and to be accountable to the nature that He imbued in us as His image bearers.  And He created a world in which to place us.

I am free because God set me free.  And when I look upon the stars at night and contemplate their wonder, I give praise and honor to the God who is so much bigger than the universe that He created.  I thank Him for giving me a place within His vast and beautiful creation.  And I glorify Him for loving me as I look up in divine awe searching for His face.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

21 Responses to “Evolution, The Religion Of Fools. In One Picture.”

  1. Allallt Says:

    I apologise for not reading the whole post, but it ventured of the path of reasonable inquiry so very quickly. Firstly, the rocks–with no method of replication, heritability or selection–are an awful analogy to evolution. Secondly, there are several theories about how the universe began, not all of which include a singularity. Thirdly, evolution has nothing to do with cosmogony (or abiogenesis). Lastly, evolution is a fact about the diversity of life; it is completely free of social or moral command (as is the theory of gravity).

  2. futuret Says:


  3. Michael Eden Says:


    That’s a very nice hand-waving cherry-picking dismissal. How about this: YOU’RE an awful analogy to evolution. There, having said it, I clearly don’t have to prove it; I mean, you clearly sure don’t think you do, do you?

    “How did that rock pile get here? Did it just happen by purely natural causes or did a creator create it?” And “How did the universe get here? Did it just happen by purely natural causes or did a creator create it?” Yeah, you’re right – no analogy whatsoever in that direct word-for-word analogy.

    You say, “There are several theories about how the universe began, not all of which include a singularity.” Well, that is true, but so is THIS: “Almost all astronomers agree on the theory of the Big Bang.” Or, to put it another way, “The Big Bang is the most widely accepted scientific theory of how the universe developed into its present state.” So I can understand why you would fault me for, you know, going with the nearly universally held scientific theory. And of course, if I’d picked one of the crackpot rivals, an ideologue like you would have been all over me for NOT citing the Big Bang singularity theory, because that’s just the kind of hypocrite you clearly are.

    From my argument, the fact that not all scientists agree means you don’t have much of what you can call “science” behind you. How in the hell can you claim you have any proof that God didn’t create the universe when you yourself want to argue that scientists are all over the board. Other than your militant, mindless atheism. But here you are, in the name of science, casually dismissing what “almost all” scientists believe. Whereas for the record, we true Christians have ONE theory: the one the Bible tells us that everything we know about legitimate science just keeps continually confirming. We don’t need a new theory every day as the old one gets shot down, unlike your side.

    So when one “scientific theory” proves there’s a Creator, trust that you godless ideologues will immediately manufacture another one.

    You foolishly assert that “evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis.” Because you have NOTHING to show anything other than it is IMPOSSIBLE for your fool theory to get off the ground, so let’s not talk about how your fool theory never gets off the ground but let’s pretend we can watch it fly. The very fact that you cannot get – and implicitly here acknowledge that you can’t get – the building blocks for your fool evolution theory to ever even begin operating, is far, FAR more than a minor inconvenience to your theory. And if you weren’t a pathologically dishonest ideologue, you would understand that. For your godless theory to work, you have to first demonstrate how your godlessness produced everything your godless theory needs to begin to work. Period.

    And I cannot do anything other than mock you for trying to tell me that “facts” don’t have ANY moral implications at all. If it is a “fact” that murder and rape is wrong – and of course we know that rape isn’t wrong in terms of your evolution, is it? – then we shouldn’t murder. If it is a “fact” that the fittest survive in the struggle for life, then our morality ought to reflect that “fact” and we ought to live accordingly.

    Your argument amounts to the simple assertion that evolution is true, but you shouldn’t actually LIVE like it’s true or else you’re be a murdering genocidal psychopath.

    I documented in this article the horrible problem evlution has with “truth”:

    If Darwin’s theory of natural selection is true, “the human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth,” as John Gray expressed it. But consider the ramification and the ensuing contradiction of Darwinism: if Darwin’s theory is true, then it “serves evolutionary success, not truth.” In other words, if Darwin’s theory is true, then it is not true.

    Again, you actually, in trying to dismiss me, serve to prove my point about you wicked people: YOU HAVE A TERRIBLE DILEMMA WITH TRUTH. In your specific case, you are actually trying to tell me you don’t believe “morality” has anything whatsoever to do with “truth” or “facts.” It is merely whatever the hell your ugly soul rationalizes; it’s whatever we can demoagugue a society to be willing to do. Which is just exactly why we had the damn Nazis.

    The theory of godless evolution is NOT AT ALL like the law of gravity. Gravity is a legitimate scientific principle that doesn’t have obvious moral and religious implications that anyone who is not a fool obviously and immediately recognizes evolution having; YOUR theory is a load of crap based on atheist ideology rather than science. As I demonstrated.

  4. dog walker Says:

    Firstly I am with you on evolution.

    Weirdly, these guys talking about gravity as a theory in order to create the false comparison of gravity to evolution… it is just a small step I don’t know maybe a giant leap beyond … stupid.

  5. dog walker Says:

    Eh, gravity is not a theory… it is a natural law. People that ain’t got that straight have no business talking science… or are really too dishonest to even be using language.

  6. Michael Eden Says:

    dog walker,

    Thanks for that reminder as to why no one argues about “the theory of gravity.”

    And yeah, if a twisted mind will invariably have a twisted version of “science.”

  7. Michael Eden Says:


    When it comes to toxic, wicked, godless society, evolution IS true: they are evolving our world into a place that will worship the beast and take his mark. And it is very near at hand now.

  8. futuret Says:


  9. Michael Eden Says:


    I’ve had injuries and have bad knees, bad shoulders. I have looked forward to a place where there would be no more pain for a long time.

    But as I’ve aged, I’ve grown to think most fondly of the day when I will never struggle with temptation, or sin, or doubt, or fear or anxiety ever again.

    God set eternity in our hearts (Ecclesiastes 3:11). We are the only creatures that can imagine life after death, of surviving the death of our bodies. Which would be impossible if we simply ARE our bodies, as the atheists assert. It’s a category fallacy to contemplate surviving the death of your body on their view, sort of like imagining a square circle. But we can imaging living after death because God set eternity in our hearts as His image-bearers and we have the reward of heaven or the justice of hell to long for or to dread.

    I like to think about the conversations I’ll be able to have with Jesus, just being able to walk with Him and talk with Him without worrying about what will happen tomorrow because tomorrow will only bring more goodness.

  10. Allallt Says:

    Dog Walker,
    Yes, thank you for reminding us that no one argues about the theory of gravity (which is a theory: http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law)–nor do they argue about the Theory of Relativity, Germ Theory or Atomic Theory.
    This, of course, is because no one pretends to not know what “Theory” means in a scientific context when it comes to these topics.

  11. Allallt Says:

    Piling rocks up is not like generational heritability. I don’t care if you can play a game with grammar, the concepts are not analogous.
    Not all Big Bang theories include a singularity. In fact, the singularity is becoming unpopular amongst the people who study it (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2345a8_bbc-horizon-what-happened-before-the-big-bang_tech). But hey, knowing more than you on this issue makes me a hypocrite, apparently.
    I didn’t say God didn’t create the universe. But the fact that not all scientist agree does not mean you can shoe-horn in a guess from antiquity. And Christians don’t have one clear answer. How old is the universe? What state was it all created in? How long did it take? Is a “day” literally a day, or is it some other period?
    Science does not confirm the Christian view: science does not confirm God (even if some writer you like happens to compare it to someone saying “let there be light”).
    When a scientific theory supported by evidence consistently and coherently demonstrates a God I will be among the waves of converts (to Deism).
    I said that abiogenesis and evolution are not the same thing because they aren’t. They don’t rise and fall with the same tide (or bad argument, in your case). It is conceivable (but not demonstrated) that God is the cause of abiogenesis and then It left evolution to do the rest of the work. But evolution is fact about reality (or, to follow your analogy, we are watching it fly). Exactly how it took off is uncertain, but there are theories. The best modern understanding of the process of abiogenesis is best summed up in these videos:
    1. Jeremy England’s 1 hour lecture in Sweden about the topic of how physical principles necessarily lead to complexity and, ultimately, life (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e91D5UAz-f4)
    2. Martyn Hanczyc’s TEDTalk about what life is (http://www.ted.com/talks/martin_hanczyc_the_line_between_life_and_not_life)
    3. This YouTube video as the most accessible expression of work by Dr Jack Szostak I could find (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg)
    This is the forefront of science on the topic of abiogenesis as of now.
    What it shows is not, necessarily, how life began. What it shows is that natural explanations of how life began are possible and plausible. Or, to continue your metaphor, it shows that it could take flight, even if it doesn’t exactly explain how.
    Again, I can leave the God hypothesis open, but that most certainly is not the direction the evidence points in.
    100 murdering, raping individuals are a lot less biologically fit than 100 pro-social people acting as part of a society. What I mean by that is that the community of 100 pro-social people will propagate. The community of 100 murdering psychopaths will diminish quickly because of the death rate and lack of social commitments. Of course, you know that. Tell me, though, does atomic theory inform your morality? Does the theory of gravity inform your morality? Of course not, so to pretend that evolution is somehow special in its moral implications is ridiculous. However, I implore you to read “The Moral Landscape” by Sam Harris (or some of my own writing on the issue: wp.me/p1l6Sq-8U, http://wp.me/p1l6Sq-im — I’ve written more and you’re welcome to come read it all, or here wp.me/p3ZODa-4J).
    “Natural selection can select for a process that is not a simulacrum to itself; it is a process of selecting a winner of a competition, not a game of selecting in kind.”
    You haven’t demonstrated anything, let alone that evolution is false. Evolution is overwhelmingly accepted in scientific communities, especially biology-based ones; it is one of the most studied subjects in history and if you could demonstrate it to be false there would be a Nobel prize in it for you (or at least a book deal). But you haven’t demonstrated it.

    (I’d be really grateful if you could reply, mostly, about the content of the links I have posted. They are the true content of my comment here.)

  12. Michael Eden Says:


    It’s as easy as what I said and there is NO question it IS directly analogous: EITHER that rock pile happened all by itself, uncaused by any intelligence, OR it was the result of a creative intelligent designer. PERIOD. Those are your two options JUST AS THEY ARE YOUR TWO OPTIONS WITH THE WHOLE UNIVERSE. I apologize for your lack of even the most basic common sense. I mean, GEEZ, you accuse me of playing a game with grammar while you snidely ASSERT as if you get to make up all the rules and the rest of us have to follow your arbitrary baloney that “piling up rocks is not like generational heritability.” Without bothering to even tell us why you play YOUR word game. I mean, if you’re telling me it’s impossible that the wind could blow one rock, etc., over time, why is it you say that everything ELSE can be produced by the process that you yourself realize is so impossible with the simple rock pile??? Just why precisely IS it that you claim that “generational heritability” can produce divine miracles but it can’t produce the most simple rock pile? “Generational heritability” can pile up the whole universe; it can pile up all the stars; it can pile up all the planets; it can pile up all living things; it can pile up the amazing intelligence of human minds. But of COURSE it can’t pile up a few rocks on top of one another because that’s just asking for too damn much.

    My analogy is simply prima facie obvious: you can’t assemble a rock pile through unguided natural forces alone because it is too complex to have happened by chance; you can’t assemble the universe through unguided natural forces alone because it is way, way, WAY, WAY, WAY too complex to have happened by chance. And the actual scientific evidence more than bears me out when you consider the staggering probabilities against even ONE tiny protein among 4,000 proteins for the very simplest living cell. As I documented. Case closed. When you look at that rock pile, you can’t not see a designer and not be a fool; when you look at the stars at night, you can’t not see a Designer of infinite more complexity than the one who built the rock pile and not be a fool.

    The very fact that you have to simply refuse to consider the fact that if you can’t even so much as assemble a simple rock pile by purely natural process alone, you can only be a fool to believe you can assemble the universe by purely natural processes alone, shows how obvious an intellectual fraud evolution truly is. Evolution simply denies to entertain whatever contradicts it. It is asinine to claim that natural selection or WHATEVER bogus claim you want to postulate can account for all that we see before us. And it is – to again use the term – prima facie obvious to anyone who is NOT a fool.

    I’m always amazed at people like you. I very clearly pointed out the FIRST time your statement that “Firstly, the rocks–with no method of replication, heritability or selection–are an awful analogy to evolution” was merely an unjustified and unwarranted false assertion on your part and I called upon you to demonstrate to me HOW it was “an awful analogy.” But what do you do??? You double-down on stupid and just restate your assertion with the same abundant absence of anything other than the fact that you’re nothing but a rabid ideologue to merely assert it again. Unless anyone wants to think that your “proof” in the form of the assertion that “Piling rocks up is not like generational heritability. I don’t care if you can play a game with grammar, the concepts are not analogous” amounts to anything more than you screaming the same stupid assertion and childishly pounding on the table this time as you shout it makes it any more true than the last time you asserted it. Again, all I have to do is assert that you are a mindless fool to show you how the powers of assertion work. I have now TWICE challenged you to show how my analogy is false and TWICE showed you how it is valid. But you got nothing and I’m done wasting my time with you.

    Also again – and I have now told you THIS twice without your being able to respond – it is a FACT that nearly ALL cosmologists continue to believe in the Big Bang model of how the universe came into existence. That is something called “a scientific fact.”

    How about this from the liberal rag “The Atlantic” which for all of its leftist bias still has reporters who call themselves “journalists” and source their facts:

    A majority of Americans don’t believe in even the most fundamental discovery of 20th century physics, which 99.9 percent of members of the National Academies of Sciences do: that our universe began with an enormous explosion, the Big Bang.”


    The National Academy of Science reports that 99.9 percent of scientists in fields relevant to astronomy accept the Big Bang theory as the most reasonable explanation for the origin of our universe

    So I just find myself in the amazing position of having a blatant ideologue claim that they represent “science” when this ideologue is IGNORING 99.9% of the experts in the field in question. And to have somebody fault my science because I am reporting what 99.9% of the relevant scientists in the field are stating is just delicious. You are an ideologue.

    You’re a climate change denier, or whatever the left is calling people who refuse to accept the overwhelming consensus of science. If I do that, I have reasons and a worldview that isn’t BASED on what scientists tell me. Unless you are going to invoke the Holy Bible or some other source of Higher Authority, though, you’re just a hypocrite. Because here you are claiming that science is all there is on the one hand while simultaneously denying the overwhelming consensus of science on the other.

    So I’m done with you. I’m not going to waste any more time on you after this because you don’t even bother to acknowledge the most blatantly obvious. You refuse to bother to interact with other people’s points. There is no point having an argument with someone like you.

    And no, I don’t have to go after every single one of the competing theories that the remaining .1 percent of whackjob ideologues manufacture and call “a theory.” It is trivial speculation. I’ll stick with dealing with what the 99.9 percent of cosmologist actually say, thank you very much.

    I remember how Einstein inserted his “cosmological constant” to his theory of relativity. Why did he do that? Because at that moment he was the same type of rabid ideologue atheist that YOU are. Einstein fudged his own theory because he wanted a static universe because as an atheist he could not face the fact that the universe had a beginning; so he fabricated “evidence” that the universe was static. He was exposed and admitted that his bias was “the greatest blunder of my life.” Einstein literally fudged science out of naked bias. And the “scientists” who are doing the same thing today that Einstein acknowledged was “the greatest blunder” of his career are a disgrace to legitimate science which follows the evidence where it leads. And the evidence leads to God.

    And that’s exactly what you are doing now: denying the obvious and substituting your ideology in place of actual science. I’ve shown that. There is simply no point wasting my time with somebody who doesn’t care about the truth, who accuses other people of playing word games when that’s all you are capable of doing: making snotty word game assertions without thinking you have to produce ANY evidence whatsoever to support your snotty word game assertions, ignoring what 99.9% of cosmologists believe while claiming you represent in ANY way legitimate science. cherry picking what you want to deal with from somebody’s argument while ignoring everything that destroys your position.

    As an example, I have now TWICE pointed out that your theory – as it describes itself and as YOU describe it as I pointed out – has nothing whatsoever to do with “truth” such that even IF your theory is true, it is false. It self-falsifies. I pointed that fact out in my reply and you ignored it. I don’t acknowledge people’s comments when they refuse to deal with my arguments.

    You rightly point out that Christians who interpret the Bible literally – and that’s the ONLY Christians I’m describing – might argue over how long it took to create the universe. But that’s ALL we argue about: we AGREE on the CAUSE. Whereas YOU are as we speak trying to point at the .1 percent of cosmologists who postulate RADICALLY DIFFERENT CAUSES. You DENY the Big Bang as the cause and go to completely and fundamentally different causes.

    And your refusal to contemplate THE CAUSE is constant. Because it proves you wrong and just as the Bible says, “18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[a] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” (Romans 1:18-20). That’s YOU, dude.

    If your theory can’t explain how it got here and in fact if your theory literally is clearly WRONG in how it got here, it is a lousy theory.

    As an example, let’s say we go out to a parking lot and look at cars. And your theory is that there are many different cars, but they all have common traits. And so you hypothesize that this car was the first one, and then this car evolved from this one, and you see where that car branched into two species of cars, etc. And I say, “The cars have common traits because they were all designed by the same intelligence, in this case human minds. And the variation in the minor details is explained by the fact that they were all designed by the same designers using common principles. Well, your theory refuses to deal with how the first car got there to begin with, and MY theory easily accounts for it. You can point at all the damn wonders of your theory, but unless you can show that the car simply materialized from deep space, your theory is garbage. Versus my theory that explains the Cause that is just such an inconvenient truth to you. And (I believe we know) that cars did NOT “evolve.” They were DESIGNED by a creative intelligence. So my theory fits far better than yours and anyone who doesn’t recognize that is what the Bible rightly calls “the fool.”

    But that said, your attempt to separate out “abiogenesis” from “evolution” is NOT an interesting project to me; because if you want to embrace and acknowledge God and claim that God created and then allowed evolution to finish His creation, while I think that’s incorrect, I’m not going to get rabid over that. But don’t think you can simply IGNORE the “abiogenesis problem” and bypass it and sit there and lecture me about evolution being “fact.” Because UNLESS you don’t specifically provide for me a testable, verifiable theory as to how you explain how it all happened, don’t bother me with your useless theory. Because I have a far better one that actually explains what your theory clearly is unable to explain.

    So tell me that the earth is actually at least an absolute bare minimum of 10^450 years old rather than the 4.6 x 10^9 years that all the rest of the scientists claim earth is, or else bow down and acknowledge your Creator.

    But that’s not what you’re doing. You’re trying to avoid a dilemma you have no answer for. And you do that over and over again in this article.

    We have seen a history of the worst kind of bias in “science.” Science was – as I documented – devised by Christians and it was Christians who developed every single major branch of science. But biased ideologues have perverted it. I still find the documented historically demonstrated bias of scientists amazing. I can cite a bunch of examples where the entire scientific community accepted a “fact” out of naked atheist bias: Peking man, Piltdown man, Java man, Nebraska man, etc. In every single one of these cases, a blatantly obvious fraud was passed off as “scientific fact” and consumed for decades and even longer, because scientists were that desperate to find ANYTHING they could claim as support for their godless theory.

    And people just like you just keep rabidly pumping lies out like the lie factories that you are. Because they DON’T care about truth, just like evolution itself doesn’t give one damn about truth such that “truth” itself becomes impossible if it is accepted. As I demonstrated and which you ignored.

    Your thing about the 100 murdering psychopaths verses 100 pro-social people is actually pirating a CHRISTIAN argument from Dinesh D’Souza. Thank you for acknowledging the moral superiority of the Christian worldview by your theft:

    The Reverend Randy Alcorn, founder of Eternal Perspective ministries in Oregon, sometimes presents his audience with two creation stories and asks them whether it matters which one is true. In the secular account, “You are the descendant of a tiny cell of primordial protoplasm washed up on an empty beach three and a half billion years ago. You are the blind and arbitrary product of time, chance, and natural forces. You are a mere grab-bag of atomic particles, a conglomeration of genetic substance. You exist on a tiny planet in a minute solar system in an empty corner of a meaningless universe. You are a purely biological entity, different only in degree but not in kind from a microbe, virus, or amoeba. You have no essence beyond your body, and at death you will cease to exist entirely. In short, you came from nothing and are going nowhere.

    In the Christian view, by contrast, “You are the special creation of a good and all-powerful God. You are created in His image, with capacities to think, feel and worship that set you above all other life forms. You differ from the animals not simply in degree but in kind. Not only is your kind unique, but you are unique among your kind. Your Creator loves you so much and so intensely desires your companionship and affection that He has a perfect plan for your life. In addition, God gave the life of His only Son that you might spend eternity with Him. If you are willing to accept the gift of salvation, you can become a child of God.”

    Now imagine the two groups of people – let’s call them the secular tribe and the religious tribe – who subscribe to these two worldviews. Which of the two tribes is more likely to survive, prosper and multiply? The religious tribe is made up of people who have an animating sense of purpose. The secular tribe is made up of people who are not sure why they exist at all. The religious tribe is composed of individuals who view their every thought and action as consequential. The secular tribe is made up of matter that cannot explain why it is able to think at all. — Dinish D’Souza, What’s So Great About Christianity, pp. 15-16

    I cite that quote and say more about it here: https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/obama-and-his-liberal-fascists-want-to-ban-guns-why-dont-we-ban-anti-christian-worldviews-instead/

    A huge problem you run into is WHO DECIDES who is a psychopath and who is a pro-social person? I mean, is the person who embraces perverted homosexual sodomy marriage – in flagrant abandonment of what Darwinism tells us – the “pro-social person,” or is the person who reads the Word of God and condemns it as something that brings God’s wrath???

    Who makes the standards? Who sets the rules? Who is master of all of us evolutionary farm animals and gets to dictate to everyone? Who gets to decide what’s right and wrong? According to what standard do we claim that people in one group are “psychopaths” and people in another group are obviously “pro-social people”? What makes the rules? And of course, as I pointed out, it’s YOU Nazis, YOU Stalinists who assert that wrong is right and right is wrong. YOU think YOU and ONLY YOU should get to decide whose human bullcrap should replace the standard of God and YOU should be able to force people into YOUR morality. And so we have socialism – national socialist Nazis and international socialist Stalinists – who murdered so many tens of millions of people its beyond unreal because they came up with their own set of moral rules and the people they didn’t like lost.

    Riddle me this: how did Kim Jong Un’s execution of 15 of his top officials not work toward his “evolutionary advantage” and his “survival of the fittest”? http://news.yahoo.com/north-koreas-kim-ordered-15-executions-souths-spy-093711352.html

    My theory has heaven and hell and Kim Jong Un is going to burn in a very hot hell where he pays for ALL of his moral crimes as God ultimately balances the scales of justice once and for all. YOUR theory says that Adolf Hitler deserves the same end and arrives at the same end as Mother Teresa. One of our theories has absolutely NOTHING to deal with the problem of origin, the problem of life or the problem of evil. And the other guy’s vastly superior theory DOES.

    And thus we’ve had sick societies BASED on your depraved Darwinian viewsw arise, such as THE most powerful society in the world in the 1930s and 40s. Such as the vicious communists who were officially state atheist and murdered more than 110 million of their own people during peacetime alone. Such as the wicked, vicious Assyrian Empire that practiced all the same vicious barbarism that the Islamic State people are doing in the exact same part of the world today. The Assyrian Empire was the first great power and it dominated for centuries by practicing vicious barbarism. And the bottom line is it doesn’t matter if it works, if it has what you would call “evolutionary advantage.” It matters that it is evil and wrong no matter how well it seems to be “working.”

    Your assertion of an argument that the most moral society is the one that necessarily always is fittest and survives runs into a lot of problems.

    It sure does in the blockbuster movies, such as “Alien”:

    Ash: You still don’t understand what you’re dealing with, do you? Perfect organism. Its structural perfection is matched only by its hostility.

    Lambert: You admire it.

    Ash: I admire its purity. A survivor… unclouded by conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality.

    It sure does in blockbuster movies like “Independence Day”:

    President Thomas Whitmore: I saw… its thoughts. I saw what they’re planning to do. They’re like locusts. They’re moving from planet to planet… their whole civilization. After they’ve consumed every natural resource they move on… and we’re next. Nuke ’em. Let’s nuke the bastards.

    I’ve watched programs on science channels in which top scientists discuss what intelligent life on another planet would look like. And they point out that such intelligent life could very well be looking for the resources of an inferior species to strip and plunder and that we’re fools for advertising our existence on this mineral-rich planet if there actually ARE aliens. Being an intelligent species and being “pro-social people” are absolutely NOT intrinsically related; all we have to do is look at our OWN species to see how many times WE have preyed upon weaker members OF OUR OWN SPECIES to prove your thesis false.

    Because without a Creator God who ultimately holds His creation to account for its moral actions, your theory is a bunch of blathering gibberish. That’s the problem with your “theory.” You cannot produce morality or account for it. You can’t answer how Stalin and Hitler were “bad atheists.” There IS no morality in atheism anymore than there should be morality for hyenas who have the bad habit of eating their prey alive while the poor animal suffers horribly. We simply do what we do because we evolved to do it. And that’s that.

    But the contradictions of Darwinism abound where you believe what your own miserable theory says is clearly wrong/stupid:

    You believe that the murder of 60 million innocent human beings is right; heck, you can even point to a couple of animal species that do it. Yes, you liberals can claim that you’re just like sharks, or spiders, or parasitic wasps. You surely are parasites, after all. Isn’t killing off your healthy young – which we’ve done by the millions – a horrible idea in Darwinian terms??? The fittest are defined as those that leave behind the most offspring; so murdering your own offspring is the ultimate contradiction to Darwinism. And yet the people who are the most Darwinian are the most likely to be what Darwin clearly described as the very least fit members of the species. It’s kind of poetic justice, I suppose.

    I’m just going to point out the simple fact here that if you evolutionists can “justify” murdering your own damn babies, how the hell are you warped enough to believe you can’t just as legitimately justify murdering SOMEONE ELSE’S BABIES???? Just what is it about your speciest bigotry that makes you claim we humans are in any way, shape or form morally superior to the worse animals when we are even sicker than THEY are. Because at least the members of the species that kill their own kill somebody ELSE’S baby rather than murdering their own. You know, when they AREN’T parasitic insects like liberals. And evolution teaches that the fittest members of any species are by definition the ones that leave behind the most offspring.

    The Bible said it right: There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death. — Proverbs 14:12. And Micah might as well have been speaking of your abortion mills when he declared, “You who hate good and love evil, Who tear off their skin from them And their flesh from their bones (Micah 3:2).

    I already mentioned the issue of perverted homosexual marriage: oh, yeah, THAT’S how the fittest members of a species do it. Again, the joke is on you as the more likely you are to believe in Darwinism, the less fit you actually are even according to the standards of Darwinism. To say nothing of actual biblical morality.

    So for you, “science” is whatever sick explanation you can offer with your twisted minds to justify whatever the hell you want to do. Your way is the way of Isaiah 5:20 in which wicked people call good evil and call evil good and figure out some twisted way to justify their perversion. Your way is to “love evil more than good, Falsehood more than speaking what is right” as Psalm 52:3 declares. Your way is to profess yourself to be wise and become a fool, as Romans 1:22 says.

    I like how you end: be courteous to me and reply to all my arguments even though I am a hypocrite who has refused to respond to most of your arguments with the same courtesy I’m asking of you.

  13. Michael Eden Says:

    Um, dude, there’s something called “Newton’s LAW of Universal Gravitation.” Newton was a scientist who lived 300 years ago. I’m sorry you are several centuries behind.

    You are disingenuous indeed to keep claiming that evolution and gravity rest on the same stage when they very clearly do NOT.

  14. dog walker Says:

    Ugh! Religion and science, religion and science. Makes me want to talk about the gym.
    Wait. I like religion. My wife has got it right. I might spend the rest of my life studying what she studies, either that or I will just study her. I like her. I like everyting about her and she has got religion.
    Problem with me is that I am antisocial. I was just social enough to get the perfect wife.
    I could spend days on end thinking about God but mostly I thank God for my wife.
    I have a hard time with rapture, but I am with you on evolution.
    I look at the mind that can design a Cray YMP and I look at the mind that can stare at a rose and say … nice!
    That ain’t the kind of stuff that evolves.
    I get it. Survival of the species. Hey I survived.
    Appreciation of beauty, How does that fit survival of the fittest?

    Want to talk science? Look up entropy. The natural way of things is from order to disorder. Science clowns will be trying the “closed system” argument. It is silly. System boundaries are arbitrary and are all about point of view. A closed system is a diesel engine. A closed system is not a planet or a solar system unless you have a God perspective..

    I don’t know Mr. Eden. I read all of your essays and scratch my head. I like it that you entertain naysayers. I like it that you put up with me. Here we all are wondering what God has for us. I am kind of mean spirited. I am a bully. I fantasize violence.

    My wife takes care of handicapped kids. How is that survival of the fittest?

  15. Michael Eden Says:

    dog walker,

    That is one of the many arguments that finish off the drivel that is evolution.

    How did appreciation of the beauty of a sunset evolve? You might be able to explain how a beautiful peacock’s feathers attract a mate, but how does a beautiful sunrise/sunset do that? How did our art evolve? How did music evolve? As I point out in the article via Gleason Archer, what about intelligence and free will? YOU got NOTHING, Darwinist. How did one species get so vastly more intelligent than any other that we can think/do things that other animals can’t begin to do? When will the first ape build a spacecraft and land on another planet?

    I also documented the dilemma of truth: if evolution is true, TRUTH isn’t true. This is a “theory” that commits intellectual suicide for any honest enough to face its multiple dilemmas.

    And, yes, your wife is pretty stupid for taking care of handicapped kids if Darwinism is correct. We ought to be practicing “lebensunwertes leben” or “life unworthy of life” and killing these Darwinian failures off. But when a family adopts a severely disabled child, just how does that progress us toward survival of the fittest??? I remember a story of an airplane crash where the plane went into the water. A man and woman died keeping their disabled adopted daughter afloat in her wheelchair. That is absolutely STUPID if evolution is true and God isn’t. In fact, ANY act of heroism is a stupid and laughable act and we should mock that moron rather than praise him if he/she sacrifices his survival to help someone else.

    Everything that is good, everything that is right, everything that is true, everything that is honorable or virtuous or decent is turned upside down if we just apply evolution or faithfully practice the Darwinism we claim is responsible for our “evolution” to actual life.

  16. Bill Says:

    I haven’t visited your website in awhile and shame on me for that. Our viewpoints are so similar that I feel fortunate that you are the one that can articulate what I am thinking in such a profound way. God seems to have a clear and definitive purpose for your life Michael – revealing the truth of Him from your words to those upon whom his Holy Spirit will touch.

    An interesting read for you, if you haven’t already, is ‘The Privileged Planet’ by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards. I will leave that google search to you but an excellent book. You spoke of the ‘fine tuning’ of the universe and the authors pretty much declare that for such a fine tuning to occur it’s like winning the lottery six times in a row. Also some mind warping scientific speak on how particles or atoms in the past may have been at a different kinetic level thus partially explaining why carbon dating etc is so far off. There wouldn’t really be anyway to determine such a thing either. God’s mysteries are his own. A lot more to the book than that of course with just enough scientific geekiness to keep me excited and going ‘huh?’ at the same time.

    The theory of evolution has always been just another method for Godless scientists to declare that there is no God. But this is the Devil at work of course – to pervert that which was created to PROVE God’s existence into something that DENYS it. Simple as that. The Holy Grail now seems to be finding some single celled sludge on a distant planet and declaring, once again, that God does not exist.

    God will not be mocked.

    You take care Michael. We will chat again soon.


  17. Michael Eden Says:


    Thank you so much for your prophetic encouragement. Great minds think alike whenever they agree on God and His Word!

    I am familiar with Guillermo Gonzales. He was the victim of an anti-science Stalinist purge from a now-leftist ONLY university. Anyone there who doesn’t share their ideology is PURGED. Gonzales appeared in the documentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” and the Stalinist pseudo-science left completely agreed with the movie, saying, “You’re RIGHT. We ARE Stalinists and we DO expel anyone who allows or manifests intelligence.” And they purged him out of rabid hatred for any legitimate scientific idea from a legitimate scientist that godless atheism may not be the only way to view the world.

    The universe – and its Creation by a Creator – stand as brute fact. Fools say otherwise.

    I have come to realize that if all the money that went into the pursuit of “evolution” had gone into the pursuit of “young earth creationism,” we would have a massive array of conclusive scientific evidence for young earth creationism EVEN IF YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISM WASN’T TRUE. But it’s like Hollywood: a monolithic community of pretenders who sell fantasy for a living and distort everything they touch.

    I do hope you stop by to chat again, Bill. And God bless you.

  18. futuret Says:

    Salvation And Survival

    Isaiah 1:6-7 Our Detestable Disobedience

    Posted: 03 May 2015 05:00 AM PDT

    From the sole of the foot even to the head

    there is no soundness or health in [the nation’s body]—

    but wounds and bruises and fresh and bleeding stripes;

    they have not been pressed out and closed up or bound up

    or softened with oil. [No one has troubled to seek a remedy.]

    [Because of your detestable disobedience]

    your country lies desolate, your cities are burned with fire;

    your land—strangers devour it in your very presence,

    and it is desolate, as overthrown by aliens.

    Isaiah, the prophet, whose name means “Salvation of the Lord” is prophesying to the ancient nation of Judah. Their generational sins have caught up with them and God’s Judgment is upon them. As Jehovah’s spokesman, Isaiah has consistently warned the people that the nation was immersed in sin. He begged them to repent, and when they refused, he foretold coming destruction.

    Isaiah prophesied during a time of great political turmoil for Judah; a time when they became embroiled in the conflicts between Assyria and the nations of Israel and Syria. Isaiah counseled the nation to make no alliances, but to trust only in the Lord. Isaiah portrays the sovereign rule of the Lord — not only against His favored people, but of heathen nations, as well. The prophet points out that the Lord uses whom He chooses to execute His purposes; and afterward judges each nation, bringing them to desolation because of their sins.

    In these verses, Isaiah compares the nation’s sins with a sick and diseased body. Their disobedience threatens to be mortal. From the sole of their foot to the top of their head; from the peasant to the king, there is no soundness, no moral principle, no religion, and that represents the health of the soul. There is nothing but guilt and corruption; the sad effects of man’s fall. This passage declares the total depravity of human nature and the decay of a nation. While sin remains unrepented, nothing is done toward healing these wounds, and preventing the fatal effects.

    This is an apt description of the state of the nation of Judah at the time of Isaiah. But it could easily be describing the state of the soul of America. How quickly — and easily — we have forgotten that we, as a nation, owe our existence to His providence and protection during our founding. How careless we have been in safeguarding our God-given freedom and the prosperity that He rained down on us! How inattentive has the American Church been in teaching repentance, which is at the center of God’s terms for reconciliation.

    While our national sins remains unrepented for, nothing is done toward healing the gaping wounds, and preventing further fatal effects. No one has troubled to seek a remedy for the sins, or to turn back from them. Instead we move from abortion in the first trimester to late-term abortions; from approving civil unions between same-sex couples to same-sex marriage. Our sins mount up, and as the Scripture says, our country lies desolate (the devastating California drought); our cities are burned with fire (Ferguson and Baltimore); strangers devour our land, and we are overthrown by aliens (the amnesty offered to millions of illegal immigrants).

    In the year that Isaiah prophesied, Jerusalem was left exposed and unprotected. The same can be said of our nation in this time. Isaiah warns that if Judah would be willing to repent and be obedient, they would eat the good of the land; if they refused and rebelled, they would be devoured by the sword. We would do well to consider the same warning.

    But the good news — and there is always good news when the Lord is your rock and your deliverer — God always saves a remnant to serve Him. His Mercy will see that those who love and obey Him are not consumed. We are all guilty of sin and diseased flesh. But if we repent and accept the sanctifying Spirit of God, our health can be restored. The same is true of the individual, as well as a nation. Oh, how I pray for the healing of our blessed nation!

  19. Michael Eden Says:


    Many Christian leaders of the past – many of our founding fathers among them – wrongly viewed America essentially as “Zion West.” They claimed the promises of God’s Holy land Israel. That was wrong because Israel is the JEWS’ Holy land; Christians do NOT have an earthly Kingdom other than being part of the one that Jesus Himself will establish IN Jerusalem during the Millennium.

    BUT. And the but is this: the United States UNIQUELY and POWERFULLY has called upon God as NO other nation has throughout its history, most especially during D-Day when our troops were hitting Hitler’s Atlantic Wall at Normandy. The President of he United States did what no other leader of the world did: he prayed before his nation. And the people listened to his prayer and fell on their knees in factories and offices and schools and they prayed for their sons. This is a nation that has uniquely placed itself under its OWN covenant with God. And we have reneged on our covenant and we are even now facing the consequences.

    Russia is in Bible prophecy. China is in Bible prophecy. Europe is in Bible prophecy. The host of Muslim nations led by Iran and Russia during the war of Gog-Magog in Ezekiel 38 are all in Bible prophecy.

    The nation that does not seem to exist is the United States. And that is because we will either catastrophically collapse or be so irrelevant there was simply no reason to mention us.

    The nations above will all be known for their wickedness. But to a large degree, all of these nations have ALWAYS been wicked. The United States was created “to form a more perfect union” as “one nation under God.” And God is going to hold the nation that called on His name and then abandoned Him to account. And soon.

    As for me, I’m looking up, because my redemption (at the Rapture) draws near.

  20. Paul Muad'Dib Says:

    This is yet more evidence that religion makes people stupid.

  21. Michael Eden Says:

    Says the person so stupid in his atheism that he leaves idiotic drive-by comments that fail to grasp anything other than drive-by-stupidity.

    I allow and welcome discussion, but there is no possibility of having a “discussion” with people who leave drive-by comments that don’t even attempt to deal with anything I said. And so I block people who demonstrate that they are not morally or mentally capable of commenting on the substance of an article. So goodbye, fool.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: