Atheism & Evolution Answered 4


So far, we’ve examined:

  • There is an absolute moral standard in the Universe.
  • There is something greater than myself
  • That something set up those absolute moral standards.
  • That Something greater who has set up moral standards will someday judge me according to those standards.
  • If the Universe exists, it either has always been there, or it has been created.
  • If it was created, it had a creation.
  • If it had a creation, it had a creator.
  • If I see something moving, I recognize that a force or energy was applied to that something to make it move.
  • A+B=C. If C = 0 and A =0 then B = 0. If A =0 and B=0, then C cannot equal “Everything”
  • There’s no reason why we have universal laws.
  • If we did not have protons, would the laws of nature work? No. By that very concept, we identify that the kinds of materials the universe is made of are DESIGNED to cooperate with the very laws that were put in place.
  • It is nearly impossible to know A+B=c if you don’t know the value of A or B
  • The same scientist who popularized the Big Bang theory also proposed the Oscillating State theory, which is contradictory
  • Red light spectrum shifts may be objects receding from us, gravity bending the light, or objects between us and the star. We cannot say for sure at this time.
  • There is not enough background radiation to account for the Big Bang
  • radio waves from space are probably just the sounds of comets, stars and planets
  • Triangulation to determine the distance of starts is not accurate past a certain point, as the error factor becomes too great
  • The laws of thermodynamics prevent the Big Bang or Evolution for that matter to be valid science
  • Gambler’s Ruin decrees that sooner or later the gambler loses – so the Big Bang and Evolution should have degenerated into chaos and death long before life arose.

I no longer have the book “the Lost World” by Michael Chrichton, but in that book is a several page long account of the origin of life itself, and the grudging admission that the only scenario which accounts for everything is Creationism. The quote end with the editorialization, “but that’s just plain wrong.” I’d give you the quote, but again, I no longer have the book.

It betrays the mindset of a religious Fanatic caught in a cult, and unable to acknowledge facts you present to them, because it’s alien to their mindset. Similar to a Jehovah’s Witness whom you show the passages in Revelation about the Great Crowd in Heaven, and you ask them, “Where is the Great Crowd?” The answer will be, “On earth.” “But it says heaven right there in the Bible! Where is the Great Crowd?” “On earth.”

And of course, the parable I’ve related before with Carl Sagan and the Hindu woman, who told him very earnestly that the Earth was on the back of a Turtle. “And what’s that turtle stand on?” Sagan asked. “Another turtle.” “And that turtle?”

“You can’t fool me, it’s turtles all the way down!”

That’s the same thing we see with Astronomers arguing in the back room of a planetarium, then going in and telling the School tour group, “56 billion years ago, all the matter in the universe was compressed into a tiny spot, and then exploded in what we call the Big Bang Theory.”

You’ve got scientific problems with the Big Bang, lack of evidence and proof, grave questions as to its validity… and you’re going to go in and LIE to schoolkids about it?

Turtles, all the way down…

It’s like when Gould was challenged about Haekel’s evolutionary art being in school textbooks… and he ADMITTED he’d known for YEARS they were incorrect!!!

If you’re a scientist reading this, and you’re allowing things to be taught you know are not true, I’ve got to ask – where is your integrity?

Scientists were relieved to have accepted the Big Bang theory, as it gave them a chance to finally have an answer, an alternative to “God created the Heaven and the Earth.” Despite knowing it did not answer the questions, and when approached by the laws of thermodynamics, it rapidly fell apart. The only answer? “Creationism, but that’s just plain wrong! There’s turtles all the way down!”

So, now we’ve got subatomic particles hurling through space outward in a Sputnik type fashion away from a common origin source. Somehow, the particles are supposed to form molecules along the way. Shot from a shotgun, I’ve pointed out, flies outward and does not bounce one shot off another – it just flies out. So too would the Big Bang, spewing out subatomic particles. Neutrons, electrons, and protons. Again, the theory does not account for the prompt formation of molecules, which is required for the very next step, the formation of gas clouds.

Gas clouds supposedly formed as the particles slowed. But wait! There’s nothing in space to have slowed the particles! There is NOW, but according to your theory, not yet! So, by the big bang theory, the particles would have just kept flying!

“Well, we know they DID slow down and form molecules because we have them!!!”

MAYBE those molecules are THERE because God MADE them, Mr. Smarty Pants! Under circular reasoning, you should find your argument neatly tucked in there!

“Creationism, but that’s just plain wrong! There’s turtles all the way down!”

Huh.

Okay, let’s agree that the particles somehow slowed, after agreeing that nothing somehow created matter, and that matter somehow compressed itself into a tiny spot, then SOMEHOW got enough stored energy from absolutely nowhere to make an explosion that defied the laws of science and left absolutely no evidence of it.

“That’s not fair! When you say it, you make it sound stupid!”

It IS stupid! The whole silly idea!

The theory then states that the particles formed a gas cloud (first somehow organizing into gas – hydrogen, and who knows what else – Scientists like to toss around Carbon, Methane and any toxic blend that suits their fancy).

Vance Ferril, author of the Evolution Cruncher, suggests a simple experiment – release cans of gas into a very large room and wait to see if they coalesce in the center of the room. No, they tend to expand and evaporate outwards. So even if a gas cloud did organize by itself magically, the gas cloud would have simply – evaporated. Spread apart. Broke up.

Again, ignoring the fact it’s impossible, let’s pretend it did form a gas cloud and not evaporate.

“well, it had weight and mass.” Yes, I suppose it would have, if we ignore a large number of improbabilities and pretend it did happen. But the weight and mass was insufficient to allow itself to get incredibly dense.

The whole theory rests on the concept that the matter somehow got compacted and exploded. Well, to do that requires a GREAT amount of mass packed into a dense area. That actually involves changing the gas from gases (very light weight in atomic density!) to heavy metals (in the 200 range and higher on the periodic table.)

Basically what that means is the heavy metals can explode if compressed. And we could easily hypothesize gas clouds originating. So by pretending that they start as tadpoles and turn into frogs, we assume the gas stops being gas and compresses into uranium or strontium – an entirely different element altogether.

So, this shouldn’t be hard to prove at all. Let’s fill a chamber with methane, and apply pressure until it makes a brick of strontium. Go ahead. I’ll wait over here while you do it.

Oh, you can’t do it? Hm.

“Creationism, but that’s just plain wrong! There’s turtles all the way down!”

Now for the unexplained parts of your hypothesis…

  • name the force that compacted said gas cloud. Gravity and mass is insufficient to do it. Indeed, gravity would actually keep the mass combined into one area, and KEEP it from compressing!
  • Name the energy that KEPT it compressed. Where did it come from?
  • Where did the energy come from that ignited it into a star?

Vance Ferril in his Evolution Cruncher also has some questions, like “what happened to all the antimatter from the big bang? They should have interacted with all the matter in the universe and destroyed it!

Too many unanswered questions.

Advertisements

Atheism & Evolution Answered 3


So far, we’ve examined:

  • There is an absolute moral standard in the Universe.
  • There is something greater than myself
  • That something set up those absolute moral standards.
  • That Something greater who has set up moral standards will someday judge me according to those standards.
  • If the Universe exists, it either has always been there, or it has been created.
  • If it was created, it had a creation.
  • If it had a creation, it had a creator.
  • If I see something moving, I recognize that a force or energy was applied to that something to make it move.
  • A+B=C. If C = 0 and A =0 then B = 0. If A =0 and B=0, then C cannot equal “Everything”
  • There’s no reason why we have universal laws.
  • If we did not have protons, would the laws of nature work? No. By that very concept, we identify that the kinds of materials the universe is made of are DESIGNED to cooperate with the very laws that were put in place.
  • It is nearly impossible to know A+B=c if you don’t know the value of A or B
  • The same scientist who popularized the Big Bang theory also proposed the Oscillating State theory, which is contradictory
  • Red light spectrum shifts may be objects receding from us, gravity bending the light, or objects between us and the star. We cannot say for sure at this time.
  • There is not enough background radiation to account for the Big Bang
  • radio waves from space are probably just the sounds of comets, stars and planets
  • Triangulation to determine the distance of starts is not accurate past a certain point, as the error factor becomes too great

I’ve gotten all this from an introduction and an examination of the rudimentary points of the Big Bang. Already Science is not doing very well. What the Big Bang theory boils down to is this – the universe has either been here always, or was created, or created itself (?) or never existed in the first place.

Option 4 is the pet theory of Buddhists and Christian Scientists (who are neither Christian nor Scientists), who believe the universe is an illusion. We can pretty much dismiss it.

Nobody seems to accept option one. The stars and comets and planets appear to be moving. So someone or something set them in motion. See Newton.

What we disagree on is that Science decided the universe created itself. The basic premise of the Big Bang theory is that 15 trillion years ago, nothing decided to explode and become everything.

The second law of thermodynamics is that all objects break down and disorganize. It was the opinion of nuclear scientist Robert Faid that the second law of thermodynamics not only disproved the Big Bang, but made a mockery of it. How does non-existent matter become existent matter?

This is the issue we can’t resolve. It’s like talking to someone who repeats the instructions, “One – put car in drive, three – arrive at destination.” Wait, we’re missing step two??? “One – put car in drive, three – arrive at destination.” But we’re missing step two!!! “One – put car in drive, three…”

Where did the universe come from? “At the beginning of time, all the matter of the universe was compressed into a tiny dot smaller than the period at the end of this sentence.” Wait, you missed step two! Where did that matter and mass come from? Where did the rules of nature come from, the laws of thermodynamics?

“All the matter of the universe…” But wait! You missed step two!

Let’s agree to ignore for now the very major flaw in their non-explanation for the creation of the universe, which in their theory must already be created (and therefore doesn’t explain ANYTHING!). There’s a BANG. According to the theory, everything flies out like the shot from a shotgun, a stream of neutrons, protons and electrons. Somehow they organize into gas and…

Wait a minute. That violates the first law of thermodynamics, the law of conservation of mass/energy. According to that, energy is required to get anything moving. Things cannot move on their own. Second, things tend to dissolve, come apart according to the second law of thermodynamics.

So for any particles to form into gas would require self-organization. That’s an impossibility. It would require external stimuli or energy to assemble the gas clouds from the simple atoms. Atoms cannot just on their own form molecular structure. Even if nothing did become everything and went KAPOW!, all you’d get is objects, subatomic particles flying off into space forever.

The theory claims they would ricochet off one another, and eventually form into spirals, which due to their charges would form them into molecules. Which held together despite the second law of thermodynamics.

This is the same kind of faulty thinking used by geneticists, who say silly things like “get a million chimpanzees and give them a million typewriters, and they’d produce Shakespeare after a million years.”

No, that’s an exceptionally faulty analogy, one that statisticians despise. Knowing the ferocity of the adult Chimpanzee, it’s more likely they would break the typewriter, urinate on it, bite it, or just bang on it with their fists, and not fingers. Indeed, someone tried it briefly to see what the results would be. The answer? fifteen ruined typewriters. It seems Chimpanzees are phenomenally strong.

“well, Chimpanzee’s just miss out on being humans.” Yes, except for the fact that chimps are chimps and humans are humans. But we’ll get there. I’m going to absolutely shred that oft-repeated argument when we get there. Except by the time I get there, nobody’s going to take evolution even remotely seriously.

And apparently, there’s something called Gambler’s Ruin, which states that it seems the odds are even, 50-50 when a gambler is going to flip a coin or spin a roulette wheel. However, Gambler’s Ruin states there’s a built-in error or failure factor. The gambler SHOULD have even odds… but the laws of averages (which seem to resemble the laws of thermodynamics, by the way) say that the gambler ALWAYS loses in the long run if they don’t stop. Gambler’s Ruin is one of those code words Evolutionists love to toss around. They haven’t seemed to pick up on the fact that it spells disaster for their theory. If the gambler doesn’t quit, the Gambler’s Ruin theorum dictates that the whole thing dissolves into chaos. It says that if by some amazing miracle life did begin organizing itself…

…it would after a short period of time dissolve into dead matter. Ruin sets in. Long before we could get to the insect stage or the fish stage, the genetic ruin should set in. The species should die.

And long before that, the self-organizing behavior of atomic elements that defies description, logic and all known science should have broken down. The whole thing could not continue unabated, organizing itself without external stimuli, for a thousand years… let alone a billion.

So, if there’s a billion electrons, neutrons and protons, all flinging along like shot from a shotgun (which by the way, tends to just fly along on its trajectory until momentum is lost and it falls to the round… or encounters an object). and let’s say formed a hydrogen molecule,

Now, we have another issue. What (or who) decided which atoms form which molecules? What random force caused all the atoms to form hydrogen? Why did some form hydrogen and some oxygen? What prevented water from forming. Oh, well, apparently water molecules supposedly formed too…

We keep running into what some have called the Fingerprint of God – the external evidence that the Universe could not have simply created itself. There’s too much organization and external events to suggest anything besides a divine creation.

The theory states that the chaos of the Big Bang somehow collected into masses of gas clouds that coalesced and compacted into masses, which eventually started in an explosion nad formed a star. So, these proto-stars would then have needed to explode AGAIN, to create the higher elements.

So, the statistical anomalies that would have had to take place to form the first starts, supposedly repeated again after it didn’t work the first time? The whole thing sounds more than far-fetched. It sounds impossible.

especially after these proto-stars have never been seen. “Well, Jupiter’s a proto-star…” No, not really, as it is composed of the very heavier elements you say the proto-stars had to generate.

We haven’t even gotten to the formation of the planets yet, and ALREADY we’ve got so much wrong with the theory, it’s mind-boggling! This is why so many scientists have dismissed the Big Bang. To advocate something many scientists have dismissed when you don’t believe it yourself is dishonest, and utterly without integrity. Apparently, used car salesmen have far more integrity than do many scientists.

Atheism & Evolution Answered 2


So far, we’ve examined:

  • There is an absolute moral standard in the Universe.
  • There is something greater than myself
  • That something set up those absolute moral standards.
  • That Something greater who has set up moral standards will someday judge me according to those standards.
  • If the Universe exists, it either has always been there, or it has been created.
  • If it was created, it had a creation.
  • If it had a creation, it had a creator.
  • If I see something moving, I recognize that a force or energy was applied to that something to make it move.
  • A+B=C. If C = 0 and A =0 then B = 0. If A =0 and B=0, then C cannot equal “Everything”
  • There’s no reason why we have universal laws.
  • If we did not have protons, would the laws of nature work? No. By that very concept, we identify that the kinds of materials the universe is made of are DESIGNED to cooperate with the very laws that were put in place.

So far, Science and Atheism aren’t doing very good! I had to work a little harder to deal with Roman Catholicism than this!

We were dealing with a compound question often raised by Atheists, which is:

“Well, the Universe created itself! There’s tons of proof for this! The Hubble showed us that!”

So far I just kicked the first leg out from under that argument. The proof shows so far pretty conclusively that the Universe could not have created itself. Behind closed doors, Astronomers are dealing with the same conflicts that we just presented. However, to the public, they show a united front that privately they question. There’s a couple of hundred different little theories floating around, that are often presented as if fact. For instance, we see Fred Hoyles’ “Steady State Theory” or George Gamow’s “Oscillating State theory” (which presents a cycle of collapsing universe, then Big Bangs) often presented to the public when anyone raises the timid question about the Big Bang. The public isn’t informed that the scientific community debunked the “Steady State” theory back in the late 1960’s.

“um… you must have made a mistake. You just said George Gamow created the Oscillating State theory. You said yesterday he created the Big Bang theory.”

Actually, he popularized it, until he created the steady state theory. Once the Oscillating State theory was disproved conclusively, and Sir Fred Hoyle’s Steady State as well, he went back to the Big Bang theory. Why did he leave it in the first place? A lot of holes in it. Why did he go back to it? He refused to acknowledge the ugly specter that was rearing its head – the universe shows unmistakable evidence of creation. And a creation means a creator.

Let’s move on to the “tons of proof” objection. Where is it?

“Red light spectrum. Background radiation. The Van Allen belts.”

You forgot “Eye of a newt”. What is Red light spectrum? That’s looking at the spectrum of stars and comets. We can see that when the spectrum is examined on an object, and then examined a short time later, we see a movement in the red spectrum, right? What does that prove?

“It’s moving away from us.”

You moved too soon. Remember basic Algebra. I just gave you the value of A. What’s B & C?

“Uh… I don’t know.”

Right. WE know that just about EVERY object shows red light spectrum movement. What does that mean? They all show red light spectrum movement. That’s about it. We know the value of A in that equation. B is what we’re discussing right now. What’s B?

  1. Movement away from us
  2. temperature changes
  3. the effect of gravity between us and them
  4. distortion of the fabric of space by gravity wells, and the passage of light past that.
  5. an overabundance of yard gnomes on the distant objects. If one tips over, the light shifts to red.

pick one. We’re really not sure. And an awful lot of astronomers are entertaining option 4 right now, but quietly, because it’s a sacred cow of science. Sadly, to my knowledge, there are no astronomers entertaining option #5. If any do, all I ask is that you call it Dean’s Hypothesis. Thanks. Meet you in Geneva.

If everything is showing red shift, that either means the Earth is the very center of the Big Bang (and none of the models show that) – or it means something else.

Background radiation. Hm. I like that one. Let’s look at it.

Shouldn’t there be a lot more? Remember, there’s a vacuum. Radiation maintains its motion until it encounters something. There’s very little gas particles floating in space. Hang on that thought, because I’m addressing that tomorrow in a lot of detail!

There’s very little sand. Very little free floating ice. Absolutely no concrete walls. Free floating lead seems to be in short supply. In other words, Newton proves that radiation particles (and by radiation, we’re always meaning certain kinds of particles, such as alpha, gamma, and X rays) would continue on their way, unabated until they encounter resistance of some kind. We should be seeing enough X-rays radiating from a common source, and there should be enough to make space capsules turn into little microwaveable packages.

Yet there’s …not that much radiation out there. Some. And surely it’s enough background noise that the very planets, plutoids (since we have to have that designation now), and the Sun all can account for it, plus or minus a minute amount.

What was your third objection? The Van Allen belt? There’s a reason scientists stopped talking about it back in the ’60’s. It’s accountable for by the very presence of a lot of nickel and iron in the crust of the earth. And it’s rate of decay is important. i’ll hit on that briefly as well.

The real reason astronomers stopped talking about the Van Allen belt is because it’s a favorite topic of Christian apologists. It’s like dropping your hands in a prize fight – you’re just asking for the chin punch.

“We HEAR the Big Bang!”

You hear lots of noise from space. Do you actually hear the loud “Boom”? Or just lots of noise from stars? The latter explanation. Remember Occam’s Razor. Atheists are fond of shaving with it. In this case, it’s cutting deep.

As for what the Hubble showed – well, let me point out nobody ever asked me if I wanted MY tax dollars to pay for a telescope that would look for proof of something that we’ve already demonstrated could not have happened. I’d like my share of that tax money BACK.

If Christians asked Congress for money to prove the existence of God, and to popularize the proof of the Lord Jesus Christ, Atheists would be the first to jump up and shout against it. Yet when scientists asked for BILLIONS of dollars to search for evidence of the Big Bang, nobody squeaked.

Getting back to the Hubble, the rationale for the Hubble was that the atmosphere creates distortion that prevents us from being able to see millions of light years away. so we spent billions of dollars putting it up. So far, its gotten some photographs that after technicians get done digitally enhancing (read: photoshopping), look spectacular.

Nobody’s jumped out there with a photograph showing real proofs of anything. Incidentally, we’re not so sure about the distances of these objects. You see, you can triangulate the location of something only so far. We measure the distance of something by looking at it one day, then measuring again six months later.

Why?

Because if you picture the earth’s orbit as a circle – O – we know the distance from one side to another. so 180,000 miles or so. When we draw a triangle from the earth to that object, we can tell by the two sides of the triangle how far out the point is.

At 180,000 miles, the triangle is perfect. At 360,000 miles, it’s getting stretched. At 900,000 miles, the triangle is MIGHTY STRETCHED OUT! Triangulation works only so far, to only so much of a distance. Past that, the error factor RUSHES in, not “creeps in”.

So, any distance past 1,000,000 miles is suspect.

What’s the implications of that? Simple. If the universe is expanding… then it’s only been expanding a short time. If it’s not expanding… then there’s no Big Bang. To accept the Big Bang, we must then propose a certain number of conditions…

  • The speed of light is constant
  • the red shift says everything is moving away from us rapidly
  • nothing decided to explode and create everything, from absolutely nothing.
  • Distances are exaggerated, and we must conclude on the higher order of probability that something is further away (in layman’s terms, if something is estimated to be 5 to 10 million miles away, choose the farther distance, because it conforms to the theory better)

The Big Bang has so much circular reasoning, that under its own weight the circular logic has begun to orbit each other!

Atheism & Evolution Answered 1


I turn to Atheism. I deal with this briefly before, but let me restart so I can abolish it more completely. At the bottom, i’ll list some articles I’ve done before, so you can catch up on what I’ve written before.

Atheism is a religion that claims there is no God. The fact they’ve started organizing Atheism Churches is very simply a subconscious acknowledging of this fact.

Don’t like that? Too late now. Should have thought that one through before someone was stupid enough to invent an Atheist church.

Atheism in many ways is a foolish and self refuting religion. It boldly states, “There is no God!”

How do you know? Christians demonstrate the foolishness of this false religion all the time by asking the atheist to pretend that he has 50% of all knowledge in the Universe. The smart ones usually respond that such a thing is impossible. We then ask, then is it possible that lacking 50% or more knowledge of the Universe, that God can exist in the parts of the Universe you have no knowledge of?

They usually change the question.

A smart Atheist may find themselves wondering why I could possibly believe in a God? Well, I didn’t always. I was dead set against the idea in my 20’s. Why? Because I wanted to do what I wanted to do, and the idea of a God who will someday judge all mankind interfered with that.

There was a subconscious acknowledgement of several factors in that thought process.

  • There is an absolute moral standard in the Universe.
  • There is something greater than myself
  • That something set up those absolute moral standards.
  • That Something greater who has set up moral standards will someday judge me according to those standards.
  • I didn’t like that.

So, as a result, I denied the existence of a God. If I pretend it’s not there, I’m not threatened by it! Yay! I can do what I want! I’m eating a bag of Doritos for dinner TONIGHT!!!

Using Newtonian physics, we recognize these are scientific laws.

  • If the Universe exists, it either has always been there, or it has been created.
  • If it was created, it had a creation.
  • If it had a creation, it had a creator.

We were going good until the last point. At that point, my mind rebelled. After all, I wanted to live my sinful lifestyle!

It took faith in God to open my eyes. ONCE I believed, ONCE I exhibited faith in my God, I could suddenly see all the evidence for God had been there the WHOLE TIME. And once you get saved, you’ll see it too. absolutely guaranteed.

To reinforce the conflict I had between what I wanted and what truly was, I turned to ANYTHING that would reinforce my desire to live a sinful lifestyle. I had a strong belief in Evolution – after all, they taught it in schools, so it HAD to be true! There’s so much scientific proof!

Ray Comfort could have literally eaten me alive in a debate, and yet… at the time I prided myself in Occam’s Razor, thinking it must SURELY answer the whole God thing once and for all. Why?

Because that’s what Arthur C. Clarke kept writing in his science fiction novels. Like many other atheists, I grew up on Arthur C. Clarke, Robert A. Heinlein, Isaac Aasimov, Star Trek and Star Wars. The first Star Wars came out when I was 13.

I never stopped to investigate facts. If I had, I probably would have gotten saved YEARS ago.

There were several factors that I was unaware of. Such as – absolutely no proof whatsoever of Evolution. A single simple mathematical formula I was unaware of. Robert Heinlein was a Freemason, and worshipped a pantheistic deity by his own admission (solipsism, the belief we all are gods, and pantheism, the belief that there are gods in everything combined formed his religion. He did not put the complete theory on paper until his book Stranger in A Strange Land). Arthur C. Clarke was a Buddhist, and believed in reincarnation. Isaac Aasimov alone was an atheist. Star Trek advocated an Atheist worldview, not because it’s a truth, but rather, because it was an agenda of the very science fiction writers that wrote scripts for it.

So, with all this weighty stuff, surely there must be some truth to the Atheist position?

Nope. Smoke and mirrors. We’ve already demonstrated that my thought process had a conflict, a subconscious recognition of the fact that our very thoughts and morals are based upon a recognition of a supreme being, a creator.

The very fact there is a creation shows me there is a creator. Newton dealt with that in the 18th century. If I see something moving, I recognize that a force or energy was applied to that something to make it move. The very recognition of this as a law of science shows me that if there is a creation, there is a creator.

“Well, the Universe created itself! There’s tons of proof for this! The Hubble showed us that!”

No, actually. That’s three objections in one, so let me deal with them one at a time.

The “Big Bang” theory was posited by George LeMaitre in 1927, and popularized by George Gamow in 1948. Gamow, R. Herman, and R. A. Alpher created mathematical models that posited that it was feasible. So let’s examine it briefly.

The Big Bang theory proposes that all of the matter in the universe was compressed into a tiny dot. They always use the words “Smaller than a period on this page.” Why? That way you visualize it. It’s the size of the period on this page right? No, they said “Smaller” but everyone ends up looking at the period at the end of the sentence and visualizes this “.” They should be seeing this “?”

All that matter could no longer compress itself and then BOOM! Exploded. Right?

“You simplified it, but yes.”

The only thing that just exploded was your theory. Where did all the matter come from?

“from the Big Bang!”

Um… no. I’m not reaching you. Your theory says nothing existed, that “Nothing” compressed into a tiny place, and then blew up, right? I may have trouble going to sleep tonight, because I’m picturing that if “Nothing” exploded and created everything, then it may well do it while I’m asleep tonight!

“Nothing to worry about. Everything’s already been created.”

Okay, the conflict hasn’t popped in your head yet.

NOTHING compressed itself, and exploded, creating EVERYTHING. So Nothing + Nothing = Everything. The theory assumes that mass and the universal laws existed. In Algebra, they taught me as long as I have two bits, I can deduce the third. In this case, you have A+B=C.

So, what’s B?

“I can’t tell from that?”

B=0.

Okay, then I need to know A and C.”

A =0.

“Then C=0.”

Right. you just disproved the Big Bang. “Nothing” cannot compress and explode, and create “Everything”. There’s universal laws, the first and second laws of thermodynamics, the law of Angular Momentum, Boyle’s Law. Where did they come from? We go no further until you answer that.

“They just are.”

Oh, I see. You try to reduce God using the same logic, but when it’s applied to your god – notice I have avoided capitalizing the word universe? – you balk. There’s no reason why we have universal laws. Science Fiction writers love positing the concept of universes that do not have the same laws, right? You’re familiar with that concept. So – why does our universe have these laws? Because they work? No, the laws exist because they were made that way, to work with the very items the universe is created of.

If we did not have protons, would the laws of nature work? No. By that very concept, we identify that the kinds of materials the universe is made of are DESIGNED to cooperate with the very laws that were put in place.

Wow, Science isn’t doing very good, and we just started this!

Next math formula. This is it for the math, by the way.

X0=1

The very math formula that creates the number line. Anything we reduce to nothing equals one. Huh? Scientifically, it should reduce to 0. Right? Apparently not. Because the universe is a creation, and a creation demands a creator.

God.

Stay tuned. I’m just getting started here.

Let’s Get Some Things Right


After reading through a completely upsetting a depressing PDF file called “Liberalising and backsliding in the US“, I have come to the conclusion that a vast majority of Americans who consider themselves Christians are going to hear the horrible words, “Away from me! I never knew ye.”

It’s easy for us to look at some foreign country and think, “Wow, those folks – it’s sad. So few Christians in a country of a billion people! What a tragedy that will be to see that billion people going into Hell!”

i’m here to tell you there’s a country of 300 million people, most of whom will be going to Hell as well. I’m going to speak very highly of another country – North Korea. The Christians there have no time for things like backsliding, questioning the Bible or ecumenism. Their lifespan is measured in weeks. You know who North Korean Christians, who are being shot, tortured, and crushed alive by steam rollers – you know who THEY are praying for?

American Christians.

Let’s get some things right. Some of you reading this may need these words as a wake up call. And I’m going to upset some of you a great deal.

If a deacon or the pastor in my church came to me and said, “listen, Brother Phil, I’m worried about you. I have some questions about your salvation. Would you mind giving me your testimony?” My answer would be, “Not at all!” And then after giving it, would ask, “Are you seeing some areas of concern I need to work on?”

If you believe you can earn your way into heaven – you’re not saved.

If you believe you must perform works plus grace, you’re not saved.

If you do not believe Jesus Christ is God, you’re not saved.

If you do not believe in the Trinity, you’re not saved.

If you do not believe ye must be born again to be saved – you’re not saved.

If you believe you must be baptised to be saved, you’re not saved.

If you think you’re saved because you had an emotional reaction to an altar call, you’re not saved.

If you do not believe that you can only receive forgiveness of sins through Jesus Christ, you’re not saved.

If you do not believe that anyone who does not receive Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour will not go to hell – You’re sadly mistaken, and I have grave concerns. As a matter of fact, there exists a possibility you may not be saved and may well be joining them!

if you believe Jesus was not virgin born, I have grave concerns for your salvation.

If you question the Bible, I have concerns.

If you are looking to your own emotional reactions to determine whether God is present, you’re looking in the wrong direction.

George Barna reported in 1998 that:

“fewer than 10% of all born-again Christians possess a biblical worldview that informs their thinking and behaviour”

That’s tantamount to saying that 10% of Americans were saved in 1998. I’m not going to boldly state that, because I recognize that there are many carnal Christians, and over 95% of Christians readily describe themselves as “baby christians”.

So, I’m speaking to you.

Shame on you. you have the same Bible I do. Don’t you READ the thing??? You know, those “devotions” you’re supposed to do!

Barna said out of born-again Christians only half could correctly describe the content of John 3:16, 6 out of 10 knew what the Gospel was and just 2 out of 10 knew what the Great Commission was. (Liberalising and Backsliding In The US)

How can you possibly be unable to recite John 3:16??? HOW??? this has been described as one of the most important verses in the Bible! If you can’t get that right, I have concerns!

I have concerns about anyone who calls themselves a Christian and cannot describe the Gospel. How can you claim to be saved, but not know how or from what?

People, your eternal destiny rides on this, the choice you make! If you’re bobbing on the ocean after your ship sinks, and I toss you a life ring, and it’s within your reach and you sit there praising God the life ring is inches away, you’re gonna drown while you sing your halleluyahs!!!

GRAB THE LIFE RING!!! DO IT! QUIT SINGING HALLELUYAHS AND GET SAVED!

Salvation requires knowledge of Hell. If you tell me you’re saved, but then say you really don’t believe in Hell, I get VERY concerned for you.

If you tell me with a straight face that you’re saved, but you think everyone who believes in some form of religion is going to heaven – I have grave concerns, because it tells me you don’t understand the Gospel, and it means you don’t know the answer to one simple question – “Saved from what?””

“Well, I love God.” I’m sure you DO. There are people who lived in the Pacific Islands that truly loved their gods! You know what they were? carved idols of US Cargo planes. That can’t save. Really. think about it.

A saved Christian should be able to say, “I’m saved from an eternity in a literal Hell by the atoning sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ.” You can of course say it in your own words, but if you don’t understand that much, I’m very worried for you.

A couple of years ago, I did a study of how many people on earth are saved, using Operation World statistics. I removed every religion and denomination that does not teach “Ye must be born again”, or some combination of salvation by works. The number jumped out at me: 1.5%

That’s scary. That’s telling me 97.5% of the people on the earth are going into Hell. Few actually say they’re going to Hell, which means a great many people are in for a rude shock after they die.

Your eternal destiny rides on you getting simple things right. Christ died for your sins. He was God in the flesh, virgin born, one-third of the Trinity, eternally the son of God. He was crucified, buried, rose physically on the third day, and ascended bodily into heaven. We are saved by grace alone, and not of works. We are saved when we are born again, and spared an eternity in Hell. And only those who are born again will enter the kingdom of heaven.

If you disagree with any part of that statement, you’re not one of the 1.5%, but part of those rushing headlong on the broad, wide way into Hell.

Get it right. Get saved.

Should We Just Accept Everyone???


It’s not about what you think it’s about!

Rather, it’s the tendency of Christians to constantly just accept anyone who names the name of Christ.

In the 1950’s, Baptists took a firm stand against Church of Christ, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists and anyone who preached another Gospel, denied the deity of Christ or virgin birth of Christ, had a different Holy Book, denied the inspiration of the Bible, or believed in Salvation by works.

Today, they quote C. S. Lewis from pulpits. Dietrich Bonhoffer is quoted in Sunday Schools. We allow men who deny the very Bible to preach in our pulpits. Baptists pressure one another to accept Mormons as Christians.

What in the world is wrong with us?

If they name the name of Jesus today, we just blindly accept them. “I believe in Jesus…” “Great! Can you teach for the next nine Sundays in a row???” “Well, I should tell you I believe that my Jesus is a Martian…” “La la la la! I’m not listening! See you Sunday morning!!!”

It’s MADNESS what we’re doing! Two years ago, I wandered through a “Christian” bookstore, and found that almost every book inside was Word/Faith, Christ deniers, ecumenist authors advocating Ecumenism, Bible deniers, heretics… if it weren’t for the necktie assortment and the other chatchkeles, I’d say the store was worthless!

Folks, It’s like this. C. S. Lewis was a heretic. He believed in Salvation by Works. He said many inspiring things about his Jesus. But his Jesus is not the Jesus of the Bible. As Justin Peters says, “Another Jesus, another gospel, and another Gospel cannot save.”

We have quotes from people who’s Jesus smokes cigars and drinks Scotch while listening to loud Christian rock on a boombox, and utters, “I love this stuff.” Can you find that Jesus in your Bible? I know I can’t!

But i can find that book in that “Christian” bookstore.

We allow men who talk about the book of Genesis and use phrases like, “The Genesis myth…” and we let them come BACK. If I allowed a “Textual Critic” Bible Scholar to speak in my pulpit (first mistake – that would never happen…) and he said the phrase, “The Genesis myth…” – I’d be taking the pulpit from him and asking politely, “Brother, would you mind leaving the church, please? Right now… Could I have the ushers help me please….”

I’m not kidding.

But Bruce Metzger goes on preaching from Baptist pulpits, when we should be witnessing to him and giving him a tract! Would we allow the strung out meth head with the million piercings and the tattoos all over his body to preach from our pulpit without some kind of confession of faith first? No? Then why allow Metzger to preach from a Baptist pulpit?

People, the local church is the pillar and ground of the truth, according to 1 Tim. 3:15! We should protect the pulpit of the Lord Jesus Christ with zeal!

We should not be quoting men who denied the virgin birth or the deity of Christ, even if they did die in the holocaust. We revere a man because he preached against Hitler, but he denied the very inspiration of the Bible by saying he did not believe in the virgin birth! So sorry if you’re a Bonhoffer fan. Them’s the facts, as I’ve read them.

And Operation World – and ecumenical operation if ever there was one – began in the 2000’s to list Catholics and Mormons as Christians when they did their statistics on how many Christians resided in a country, completely skewing all the apparent first glance results! Thankfully, they give a complete breakdown so you can do the math yourselves (or did… I haven’t seen a recent one).

Here’s a statistic – Bermuda is 90% Christian. Okay, from THAT statistic, wouldn’t it imply that 90% of that country is saved? Well, how many people there believe that if you say you believe the Bible when it says you are saved by grace alone you are anathema (damned)? I’m telling you, probably most of them. How can I say that? That’s the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church! That’s how I can say that!

Let me explain that sentence above… you believe the Bible when it says you’re saved by Grace, right? Well, it’s an official teaching of the Roman Catholic church that anyone who believes they are saved by grace, they are anathema.

Huh? How can we call these people Christians when their church completely denies THE cardinal doctrine of our faith???

How many people of those 90% believe that Jesus is Lucifer’s brother? Well, if any of them are Mormon, that’s what they believe!

So, suddenly, we see that according to the Bible, that 90% is MUCH MUCH lower! The fields are white with harvest, but we’re trusting in the wolves to harvest them for us! Well, they’re not harvesting for us – it’s easy to get a lost person to remain lost – do nothing. But asking the lost to harvest the lost for you is folly.

Mormons believe that they will become gods themselves someday. “As God now is, man will become. As Man now is, God once was.” is their official teaching. Find THAT in your King James Bible! It’s not there. Trust me.

Is that the confession of faith of a saved people?

And yet when Franklin Graham, once VERY bold for the name of Christ, found out that the BGEA listed Mormonism as a cult on their website, he ordered it changed and reportedly was “quite upset”.

What in the name of peanut butter is wrong with us???

Have we no shame anymore? We witness people speaking foolishness, and say nothing. We invite heretics to preach in our pulpits. We list cults and lost people as “Christians” – because they name the name of Christ!

3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 (KJV)

The Bible says there is another Jesus. Those who say that the Lord Jesus Christ is God and rose from the dead belong to God. Those that preach a different Jesus do not.

Be jealous and zealous for the word of God! Be zealous and Jealous for the pulpit of God!

Correct Doctrine 21


5.8 The Fullness of the Holy Spirit is exhibited today when believers show boldness and zeal when witnessing to unbelievers (Luke 1:67, 12:12, Acts 4:8, 4:29, 4:31, Eph. 3:12).

5.9 The Holy Ghost is given at the moment of salvation; however, we may pray to be filled with the Holy Ghost temporarily to witness boldly. (Acts 4:8, Eph. 4:23)

Easy one today!

67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying, Luke 1:67 (KJV)

12 For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say. Luke 12:12 (KJV)

8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, Acts 4:8 (KJV)

29 And now, Lord, behold their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word, Acts 4:29 (KJV)

31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness. Acts 4:31 (KJV)

12 In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him. Ephesians 3:12 (KJV)

Easy, huh?

Here’s the last two.

8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, Acts 4:8 (KJV)

23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; Ephesians 4:23 (KJV)

Enjoy!