Are you going to heaven or hell?

Phase 4

Q & A section

“The light actually is, as you say, "stretched"--or redshifted. And we know exactly why it is redshifted.”

I don’t recall using the term “stretched”. I simply said that God made the light already there. It really is that simple.

“However, the fact remains: the light still needs to get from the galaxy to our eyes. We know it does this because we can see it. And the light needs time to do this. And your 10,000 years is nowhere near enough time.”

10,000 years is more than enough time. (It’s more like 6,000 actually). When God spoke, creation was made instantly. It’s not like God struggled to get the light here, needing thousands of years. He simply made it already here. Maturity is a theme in creation. Everything was made in full completion, in full maturity.

“It's important to note that you can't explain this impossibility without recourse to supernatural magic.”

God’s creation is indeed supernatural. What’s wrong with that? If it makes you feel better, you can call it magic, but more accurately it is simply the power of God.

“Or do we complicate the explanation and throw in an invisible, omnipotent magician? Is the magician at all necessary to understanding what we see, or does it just needlessly clutter up the picture?”

It is interesting to see how people run from the Judge. You believe, that by calling God a magician, you can solidify the notion of just how silly it is to have an all powerful Creator. This absolves you, in your mind at least, from having to face His judgment. After all, you can’t be judged by a magician, right? I have said numerous times that I and others don’t believe in God because He is necessary to explain things, we believe because God Himself reached out to us and gave us faith, and changed our hearts.

“Even assuming your magician exists: how does he make the light reach the Earth? Does he make the light travel faster than light?”

I don’t know about making it go faster as much as, like I’ve said, He simply made it already here. The speed of the light didn’t have to change for God to do that.

“There are several major problems with that "theory." First of all, as my use of quotes shows, it is not a theory.”

I understand what you are saying as far as the definition goes, but what makes you think that God must bow down to your definition and make the act of His supernatural creation falsifiable for you? He created everything, and does not have to submit to your requirements, or mine, or anyone else’s. As I’ve said, if you want to rely on the mere mind of man to prove or disprove God solely by scientific means, you will never be saved. Remember those quotes I sent you from Dr. John McArthur. If the existence and saving grace of God were determined solely by you, then you would get the glory. But you don’t deserve it, God does. That means that if you wish to claim that God does not exist by means of your own self, you are raising yourself up high and dethroning God. So go ahead and continue to determine the matter on your own, but keep in mind that God will not allow you to see Him under those conditions. You must be humble and have faith, relying upon Him and not yourself. Then you will know there is a God who saves.

“Secondly, your "mature light" theory gets cut up on Occam's Razor.”

Question for you: what makes you think God is subject to “Occam’s Razor” or any other terms humans create? You are thinking backwards here. You are thinking that God is subject to all terms, definitions, tests, rules, and regulations we come up with. But think about that for a second. Can the created dictate terms to the Creator? If there is a God, do you think you could successfully shake your fist at Him as you shout “Occam’s Razor says your creation is bogus! And furthermore, God, your act of creation isn’t falsifiable, therefore you didn’t make it!”. All I can say is, when you meet God, good luck with that.

“You always say you have a feeling God is telling the truth in his word.”

Just to be clear, I haven’t said anything about feeling like God is telling the truth, because my faith isn’t based on feelings. Faith is just that, faith. It’s something God gave me, not something I feel.

“Why didn't your god create a universe we can understand, at least to the degree our intellects allow?”

We can understand it. God’s creation is not opposed to science or our intellect. Actually, let me backtrack and say that there is a condition in which God’s special creation can be opposed to your intellect, and that condition is called pride. With human pride, there is no amount of proof in the world that will ever convince you, for the matter is not proof, but a matter of the heart. We are literally born in rebellion against God, and you either keep that for life, or get saved.

“If he created the universe 10,000 years ago and he wants us to know that, why did he make it appear ancient? Why didn't he make the farthest stars 10,000 light years away?”

Actually, God did let us know. Adam and Eve began the human race, and they were aware of God and His creation. They had direct fellowship with God before the fall, and Adam witnessed God creating on day six. You are asking this question as if man has never known about God’s creation, and therefore will look at the starlight and be deceived. But that’s not the case. Humans had knowledge of God’s creation from the start. So it wasn’t necessary for God to make the farthest star 10,000 light years away. Add to this the fact that all people know of God by general revelation, which is to simply see His creation, regardless of how far away the nearest star is. As the apostle Paul said, people are without excuse, for they can clearly see what God has made. Furthermore, as I said, God’s existence doesn’t depend on our understanding of how the light could be here, so it wasn’t necessary for the nearest star to be so close. Besides, it gives you a chance to exercise a little faith.

“Instead of turning to Hovind's quackery, you could simply say "yes, the evidence shows that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. But the evidence is deceptive, as it is with the universe. God created the world MATURE."“

There is no evidence that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, so I can’t call it deceptive.

“Why do you use junk science to explain how the earth is observably young (according to you), but you use holy magick to explain why the universe is observably old (again, according to you)?”

I don’t think young earth science is “junk”, and God‘s creation of the universe isn‘t magic, it‘s a miracle. Like I said, I think the term “magic” makes you feel better about denying the existence of God. I think I have used science and faith interchangeably in this debate, citing the miraculous in the creation of the earth and life on it, and talking science about the heavens above, and vice versa.

Heliocentrism

“How do you get heliocentrism out of that?”

After having studied the entire Bible several times over, I can make a number of statements, to include the following two points, which I will explain: 1) The Bible does not teach geocentrism. You made quite a stretch with your argument here, and it’s worth noting you seem to have missed other verses that are exceedingly clear that the sun is not orbiting the earth, but that the earth is rotating, causing day and night. 2) God is not retarded, and doesn’t make such massive mistakes in His inspired word. It’s not like God is up there saying “Oops! I had them write that the sun rotates around the earth. I’m so stupid!”. Come on. Seriously. In any case, we are finally on my playing field here, and I can shed some light (no pun intended, lol!) on this issue. Let’s first look at the verses you quoted me.

Psalm 19:6 “His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.”

Even with a literal reading, this verse is not a problem. The Bible here describes a “circuit”. Allow me to quote from Ray Comfort, which you may have already read from my link in a previous post, but it applies directly here, so here it is:

“Bible critics have scoffed at these verses, saying that they teach that the sun revolves around the earth. Science told them that the sun was stationary. Then they discovered that the sun is in fact moving through space at approximately 600,000 miles per hour. It is traveling through the heavens and has a "circuit" just as the Bible says. It is estimated that its circuit is so large, it would take 200 million years to complete one orbit.”

Psalm 93:1 “The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.”

You really need to read in context here. What is Psalm 93 teaching us? Does it have anything remotely to do with the relationship and movement of the sun and earth? This Psalm is only 5 verses long, so it’s a quick read. I suggest you look at the rest of it. This Psalm is a praise, most likely a song, in which you can clearly see the Lord is being praised for his power, sovereignty, kingship, etc. The world is created by and in control of the Lord, what He makes nobody can move, change, or alter without His allowing it, and since all Scripture points to the end of things, namely Christ and His rule, the final kingdom will never be moved by anyone, ever. This is about the control and rule of the Lord. You can read it literally, but make sure you understand the context. Once you take that into consideration, you can see that the world not being moved means that what God establishes is by His divine will and power, and indeed cannot be moved.

Joshua 10:12-13 “Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.”

“How do you get heliocentrism out of that? The Sun RISES.”

I was very surprised at this argument. Even today in our language we say that the sun rises and sets. We know that the sun doesn’t actually physically rise and set, but yet we use that language to describe what we see from our vantage point. What surprised me so much is that you know this. We say things like “The sun rises in the east and sets in the west”, or “Tomorrow morning the sun will rise at 6:15 a.m.”, etc. So any rising and setting of the sun in the Bible is just the same. So the sun in these verses from Joshua wasn’t moving any more than it is when we today say the sun rises and then goes down.

That still leads us to an obvious question. How was this long day produced? Again, look at the context, and you will see this is a literal account, with the words clarifying the cause, where you stopped one verse short. Verse 14 records: “And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel.” This long day was at the hands of the Lord. Outside of that, just for fun, you can speculate on just how He did it if you like. I would have doubts the earth stopped spinning, but rather that the Lord actually moved the sun to stay above the battlefield and kept the solar system in order while doing so. I know, I know. You have a problem with miracles being performed, but I can’t help that. But the point is as I’ve explained with these verses, no geocentrism is taught in the Bible.

“To get heliocentrism out of this, you need to interpret these passages non-literally. But wait--God doesn't do that!”

First, I do interpret those passages literally. Second, God does use visions and parables, etc. But it will be clear when they are used. The context will declare it, and further study will clarify.

“So to get heliocentrism out of this, you have to think that God is lying. Remember: you have a completely, word-for-word literal interpretation of the Bible, so there’s no room for idioms or figures of speech here.”

I do not have to think God is lying. God cannot lie. And again, the Bible is to be read literally, unless the context of a passage indicates otherwise. I mean, when you start reading about creatures with four different heads and covered all over with eyes and flying around on intersecting wheels, it should be obvious to anyone that it is a vision, in which symbolism is used, where it is not literal, but rather the meaning is to be derived from further study.

“Where in the Bible does it describe the Earth going around the sun? <-please answer.”

Gladly. Moreso than an orbit, it describes the rotation of the earth as being the cause of day and night, which refutes geocentrism just as well. Here is another quote from Ray that points out a verse supporting heliocentrism:

Job 38:12, 14, (written 3500 years ago) God Himself says: "Have you commanded the morning since your days; and caused the dayspring to know his place; that it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? It [the earth] is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment."

“Modern science has come to understand that the earth's rotation on its axis is responsible for the sun's rising and setting. The picture here is of a vessel of clay being turned or rotated upon the potter's wheel -- an accurate analogy of the earth's rotation.”

I hope that between explaining the verses you quoted me and pointing out this one, that you can see the Bible does not teach the sun revolves around the earth.

“I wasn't really going anywhere in particular with the aliens question, it was just idle curiosity. The Mormons believe in aliens, and in Jesus. Say, what do you think of Mormons?”

The thing to remember about Mormons is that they have created a different version of Jesus, one that is not at all like we find in the Bible. They have done so because they don’t trust so much in the Bible as they do their founder and modern day prophets. In other words, it was Joseph Smith who started Mormonism. And likewise it is their modern day apostles/prophets that they trust in. What I’m getting at is that their religion is based more on the authority of man than it is God or the Bible. Having leaders as they do classifies Mormonism as a cult. Contrast that to my faith, in which we do not have a mere human being as our founder, nor do we have a person who runs the church. We have no church leader. Our founder and leader is Jesus Christ Himself, God in the flesh. The Mormons follow Joseph Smith and Gordon Hinkley. There is a substantial difference. One was started and run only by humans, the other was started and is run by God. For an entire church system to be run by a human leader always signifies a man made religion. Take the Catholics for example. Their high priest isn’t Jesus, it’s the Pope. But our leader and High priest is Jesus, and Him alone. That is the way it’s supposed to be. But man has a tendency to forsake God and take matters into his own hands.

Regarding the evolution of aliens, I had said we know this not to be true, to which you replied: “Oh we do, do we? How? How many planets have we looked at?”

I was saying we know that evolution is bogus, not that there is no alien life. God could very well have created life elsewhere. I personally have my doubts, from my study of the scriptures, but it’s not impossible. But the point I was making was that if there is life elsewhere that it obviously didn’t just appear out of nowhere on a pile of dirt in some kind of soup that miraculously came alive, evolved parts it didn’t need, and somehow found another kind like it that just happened to be the opposite sex, and became conscious, and so on. Such an absurd process couldn’t take place on another planet any more than it could have here. But who knows, maybe God did create life elsewhere? It’s fun to think about! There was that coverup at Roswell after all, and that Fire in the Sky movie…

“I don’t see it that way at all. I have refuted all your refutations.”

Yeah? Oh Yeah? Well, mister, I’ve refuted all your refutations that refute all my refutations, so there! Put that in your pipe and smoke it! Lol!

“If I neglect to do so, is it their fault if they don't know? My parents didn't teach me this, and yet I'm held accountable? Even if I don't teach my kids, they'll be held accountable, right?”

If a child grows up and is past the age of accountability, as determined by God for each person, then they are accountable to themselves. We have all sinned against God, so we deserve hell because we are guilty, which has nothing to do with whether our parents taught us about the Lord or not. Furthermore, people know more about God than you think, but that would be a whole other post. Fact is, we are guilty before the Lord, period. But parents really do need to teach their children of the Lord, this fact remains.

“Even if I don't teach my kids, they'll be held accountable, right? You've said everyone has God's word written on their heart. So what anyone teaches their kids is irrelevant as far as culpability goes. According to you. You’re contradicting yourself.”

There’s no contradiction if you read what I’m saying. Kids are not held accountable as kids. They are below the age of accountability, where they don’t fully understand to make a choice. But when a person is grown up, they can choose to continue to rebel against the Lord, or be converted to Him, regardless of how much or how little their parents have taught them. As for parents teaching their kids being irrelevant to their guilt, a person is guilty of sin from day one, then they are held accountable at a certain time, so if you are asking if all people are guilty regardless of their parent’s teaching, then yes. But it’s important to teach our children of the Lord and hope and pray they do get saved.

“Well...I’m not sure what you thought was going to happen to me after I read it, but it didn’t happen. I’m not transformed or filled with The Light or speaking in tongues now that I’ve read it.”

Oh, I didn’t expect you to suddenly burst into tears and get on your knees pleading with the Lord to be saved. But I at least wanted you to be fully warned from the actual word itself, rather than just my words. Also, there is nothing in the universe more powerful than the word of the living God. It is the Word that created everything in the entire universe and life itself. If you humble yourself before the Lord, He can certainly use what you’ve read to save you, even when you least expect it. So what I expected is for you to be warned, which I know the Gospel of John did sufficiently, so that was accomplished. But the rest is up to you as to how you respond.

“Do these miracles not convince you?”” “No, they don’t, because they never happened. Why on Earth should I believe these things? Common sense and personal experience tell they’re impossible.”

So you would use your own sense and opinions to determine what can and cannot happen? I’m a bit surprised at that. How many times have people’s senses been proven wrong? For a person who is so objective, I’d figure you wouldn’t use common sense and personal experience as a basis for what is real and what isn’t. Besides your feelings, do you have any real evidence that Jesus did not perform any miracles or rise from the dead? I’m suspecting not, but I’m listening if you do.

“I’m incapable of making myself believe these things. I could not choose to believe in such fairy tales. I just don’t.”

You were correct to use the word choice. It is that choice to not believe in the Lord and what He did in the gospel accounts that will leave you guilty. Here you have someone freely offering to clear you of all charges, and you say you just can’t believe it. That’s what I’ve been saying all along. It’s not that you don’t have enough evidence to believe in God, it’s that you choose on purpose not to, because anything miraculous seems to far fetched for you. It is this willful choice that will damn you. The miraculous does require faith, but there is nothing wrong with that. God loves for people to have faith. But when you stand with your common sense, personal experience, and science as your gods, you are proud against the Lord and cannot be saved. It’s a simple matter of realizing you are guilty and therefore in need of redemption. It is Jesus that wishes to redeem you, if you will only make that choice.

“A question for you: why did you want me to read John when you say God’s word is written in my heart?”

I believe I said that God’s commandments are written on your heart, which you know as your conscious, not the entire contents of the Bible. If you had never been born in this society or this time, you would still know that murder, stealing, lying, etc., are wrong. God has also given light to every mean, that is, knowledge that He exists. These things are given to your heart, or the core of your being, so that you know better and can choose to rebel against God, or deny him outright.

“Also: I’m willing to read more! What’s the next book you think I should read?”

Serious? Even if you yet do not believe, I’d be thrilled to see you read more! How about a shorter book, but one that contains a lot of doctrine? I would next recommend the book of Romans, written by the Apostle Paul. There is a lot to learn there.

"God has been taken out of the schools," “As a Christian, aren't you secure in your faith? Don't you feel that God is with you at all times? Isn't that enough for you?”

True, God is in control in any place and at any time. But we are to deny our Creator in no place.

“Don't funnel my tax dollars into pushing your religious agenda. Don't require my kids to show up to your sermons on my tax dollar.”

The information that you are missing is that God never said to us, “Go ahead and deny me wherever you want. It doesn’t matter. My Commandments and holiness can be ignored in your institutions. I really don’t care. Do what you want.” Far from it! Being that God created the entire universe and the life in it, He has every right to demand our obedience at all times in all places. So while your anger there is directed at me, you are way off the mark. It is God who demands obedience and acknowledgment, faith and worship at all times in all places, in every area of our life. So instead of telling me not to have the Lord in schools, you need to try telling Him that and trying to change His mind.

“WHOA THERE HORSEY!!! Are you trying to say evolution has removed the value of human life? Explanation, please.”

Explanation granted. I love it when you say “Whoa horsey!”. Lol! If evolution were true, your answers to four great questions would be dismal. 1. Who am I? You are nothing but a pile of chemicles that washed up on the beach. 2. Where did I come from? You came from a cosmic burp billions of years ago. 3. Why am I here? For no reason at all. 4. Where am I going when I do? Nowhere. You will finish your life by decomposing in the dirt. Also, with evolution, there are no moral absolutes, you just make it up as you go along. You can choose to obey the law, but you don’t have to if you think you know better. After all, there is no God to answer to, so do what you want. If it feels good, do it.

“You, on the other hand, say that we are all deserving of eternal torture. If my neighbor is a rotten sinner deserving of eternal torture, than nothing I do to him can be unjustified.”

Sure it can. Eternal torture is God’s justice. You aren’t God. You can only enact justice upon your neighbor to the degree given you by the law. It’s up to God to determine what punishment you deserve after you die. By the way, there doesn’t have to be any eternal torture. Both you and your neighbor can choose to get right with the Lord.

“The Southern states, which tend to emphasize creationism more, also tend to have higher crime rates. School shootings are overwhelmingly an American phenomenon, and the majority of Americans don't believe in evolution. Conversely, in Europe, where evolution is widely accepted, and the controversy that you and I are engaged in barely exists, school shootings are practically unheard of.“

With regards to the Cho shootings and evolution, we’ve discussed that enough in my blogs, so I won’t say too much more about that here. As for the relation of crime and the teaching of creation, it’s my understanding that God has been banned from all schools, so I don’t think you can draw a relation where there is none. But I will grant you that even in the presence of the Lord, people can be rebellious. I’m reading through the first five books of the Old tesatment right now. From Exodus through Numbers, the recurring theme is the constant rebellion of an entire nation of people agasint the Lord, despite His very visible miracles and provisions for them. I won’t deny there is violence in the Bible belt, but I doubt creation and obedience to God’s Commandments are taught in the schools there, and that every parent is born again, etc.

As for your statement that a majority of Americans don’t believe in evolution, whether it’s a majority or not I don’t know, but it would seem to be at times. I know, there are polls showing that supposedly a majority of Americans believe in God, but there is a problem there. Everyone wants a free ticket to heaven, so everyone “believes in God”. People even carry the title “Christian”, but do not believe in or obey the Lord at all. They think that declaring themselves Christian means they can go go heaven when they die. They don’t want to die to themselves and follow the Lord now, because that would mean giving up too much. So when you talk about the beliefs of the American people, it’s worth pointing out America is morally bankrupt and as a whole denies the Lord. Read the results of this unbelief here in piece called “America, America“: http://www.livingwaters.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=236

“You always say you get the feeling that God is telling the truth in his word. Why then is so much falsehood used to defend it?“

I actually don’t have a “feeling” God is telling the truth. Feelings can be wrong. I have faith, not based on my opinions or experience, but faith given by God. I know more than I know anything else that God cannot lie, and that His word is absolute truth.

The Evolution Handbook

“As I was flipping through it in the book store, naturally I was thinking of you. I was astonished by what a really, profoundly bad book it was, what a complete piece of garbage. How grossly unscientific it was.“

For one, skimming and reading only some parts and not others doesn’t count for critiquing the entire book. I still think if you read the entire thing from cover to cover, you’d be shaken up a bit. But it makes sense that you would trash what you have read though, and that you’d dismiss the entire book. The general rule is that the more something disproves evoltion, the more an evolutionist will hate it, naturally. I still say belief in evolution has more to do with not wanting to submit to God and His Commandments than it does science.

Mutations

“Creationists love to say this. It's flat-out wrong. Mutation can create new genetic code, or delete or transpose existing genetic code, or any/all of the above. Mutations are simply "typos," or errors in copying genetic material. A typo can be an omitted character, an extra character, a repeated character, and/or transposed characters. Mutations are no different.”

The interesting thing is that even in your statement, you prove me correct. You only pointed out the alteration and shifting of already existing code, not a brand new code to make a whole other kind of animal. Individual or population, you still need new code for new kinds of animals. Just shifting around the code from one kind of animal (population or individual) will only produce variations of that kind. Evolution doesn’t happen on a population level, it doesn’t happen period, the only exception being variations of a kind, which stay within that kind.

Part five

“Some of these quotes come from pretty obscure sources. You don’t just stumble upon them. You seek them out, and read them. The fact that these quotes have been found is proof that someone went fishing through the articles, looking for quotes that would look damning to evolutionists on their own, if ripped out of context.”

As for deliberately looking for damning quotes, some may do that, there sure are enough of those kinds of quotes out there. I have a large book full of quotes from scientists who speak against evolution. You’ll call it raping context, but I don’t think even context can save an evolutionist from accidentally (or intentionally) telling the truth, that evolution is a lie and entirely absurd.

About Patterson‘s quote. If he is merely stating that there are no transitional fossils between kinds, I agree. There are only fossil variants within a kind, but nothing that proves one kind of animal becomes another.

David Raup‘s comment. You said “Key points: Evolution is a fact. Natural selection (Darwinism) is a theory to explain that fact.”

No, evolution as you believe it is not a fact. The only variations in animals are within their own kinds. There is not a shred of evidence that animals ever change into other animals. That remains pure theory, and a wrong one at that.

As for what Raup meant, didn’t Darwin himself say that if his theory were true, there would be countless fossils proving him right? So didn’t Darwin imply his theory was to be proven by the fossil record? He said “As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers on the crust of the earth?” His answer I believe was that the fossil record was incomplete, but that we’d find them some day. We still haven’t, and Darwin’s question remains.

As for Raup’s other comment on a lack of smooth evolutionary progression, I read that quote several times and your explanation, and it still looks damning for evolution. I mean, if Patterson was saying that there is no fossil evidence that animals change from one kind into another, and Raup is saying we are seriously lacking fossil evidence of gradual evolutionary changes, these quotes still speak against evolution.

Niles Eldredge. I understand the theories of punctuated equalibrium versus gradualism. Even as you explained it, the quote still stands. It just discounts one theory of development. So you really didn’t correct me, or Ferrell, here. Niles was saying he does not believe in the gradualism theory, and in that he is correct. Just for the record, though, the theory of punctuated equalibrium is even more absurd than the commonly accepted theory of evolution, that of gradual change.

I probably took more time looking over these quotes and your explanations of them than anything else. It really slowed me down, but I wanted to really see what you had to say about the context and true meaning of these quotes. After all that, the quotes still seem to be more damning for evolution than anything.

Geology

“is it seriously possible that Vance Farrell has no idea that the Earth is geologically active? Has he never heard of plate tectonics?”

Of course he has. I think we all have. But the out of order strata observed in some places defies explanation, even by plate movements.

“It’s hard for me to understand why someone would try to appear more ignorant than they really are, unless he’s looking to score points with an extremely uneducated audience (i.e. lacking a sixth-grade education).”

Intentional ignorance is very hard to understand, yet this is what all atheists and evolutionists do. I say that because God has actually given light and knowledge to all people. Nobody will be able to stand before God and say “I didn’t know”. For that reason, all atheists and evolutionists are willfully ignorant. The reason has nothing at all to do with science, and everything to do with the fact that they don’t want a Master ruling over them, telling them what they can and cannot do. They don’t want to submit. They know there is a God, but they so suppress that knowledge out of rebellion that they have themselves fully convinced they don’t believe due to a lack of evidence. It’s intentional ignorance at it’s most extreme, and it really does baffle me.

“I am shocked, and saddened that you think Farrell is a man of science.”

I never said he was a man of science. More than anything, he simply compiled information for a book and pointed out how absurd it is. I don’t think I ever said he was a scientist.

Heart mountain. The key word there is mountain. An entire mountain climbed up upon the rocks with all it’s layers and sits neatly in place overlooking the Wyoming plains?

“It’s not understood how it happened, but it’s very well understood THAT it happened.”

I love it! You also said that above in explaining the context of the quotes. So can you at least admit that you take evolution upon faith and not science? If you and others have to keep saying “We have no idea how it happened, but we know that it did!”, that is as far from scientific fact as you can get. The Heart Mountain exerpt was great. People who weren’t there describing in detail events they’ve never seen. That’s amazing! At least the faith of the Christian has God behind it, the faith and religion of the evolutionist has nothing. Before you say that’s not true, remember the words “We don’t know how..”.

I love the explanation of the rock lube from the article. All the details of the happenings are wonderful. That’s quite a talent, telling people in detail how something (millions of years ago, lol!) happened without having been there and having any proof. But, that is always what it takes with evolution. “We think, possibly, maybe, we don’t know, but we’ll describe it anyway as established, observable fact!”.

“Creationists know how crazy they’ll look if they attack all branches of science at once. So they subsume all science under the umbrella of evolution. They don’t want to look like they’re anti-science. Just anti-evolution. Funny, though, how their attacks on evolution always end up spilling over into geology and astronomy.”

For many, I dare say most, scientists - their religious belief of evolution does affect their study and consequently the outcomes of such. Remember, two people with two different worldviews can look at the same thing and come to opposite conclusions, even in the realm of empirical scientific research. Many scientists have a preconceived notion that the earth and universe are billions of years old, and that religious belief does affect each branch of science. It’s not the science that’s bad, it’s the evolutionary religion of the scientists themselves that is wrong, and it affects everything they do.

The Mythen - “In this case, the African plate moved northward into the Eurasian plate, causing sedimentary rock at the bottom of the western Tethys Ocean to buckle, fold, and rise out of the water. The tremendous pressure exerted on these sediments caused massive sheets of rock, called nappes, to slide hundreds of miles northward overland.”

Are you saying this with a straight face? When we have rock crawling up out of the ocean and traveling along land for great distances it’s time to examine our heads. The plain fact of the matter is that the different layers of strata cannot be dated this many millions of years old, and that one so many millions of years old, etc., because they are only 6,000 years old to begin with. But what about the “scientific proof” that says otherwise? The dating methods used are critically flawed, as is the circular reasoning of using index fossils to date the layers, and using the layers to date the fossils.

Richard Leakey

Rivalry or not, he still drew a question mark. So while Ferrell may not have mentioned Johanson, the statement still remains true, does it not? With all the details you’d like Farrell to mention in his book in addition to what is already written, the book wouldn’t be 900 pages but thousands, and would not be a “handbook” anymore.

Mass spectrometer

“Another vague comment, par for the course. Does Farrell say where the oldest skeletal remains in the Western hemisphere came from? Does he give any specific reference that one could actually investigate?”

As you said, he was citing information from Brown’s book. If you really want to get crazy about this, get Brown’s book and start digging and see where this information originally came from. I’d like to get Brown’s book myself.

As for which bones that may or may not have been tested by the spectrometer that are supposed to be older, and the age of “ancient” artifacts, there is an answer. Ferrell nails it: “It is likely that the mass spectrometer technique will never be permitted to be applied to major ancient archaeological or pre-archaeological materials, such as ancient hominid bones. To do so would reveal their recent age.” And for goodness sake, we can’t have that, can we? There just might be a God we have to answer to, meaning we are not free to make our own rules. No, we can’t have that.

Guadeloupe woman

Well, on one side it’s said there is clear evidence of a burial, on the other it’s said she was found encased in “28 million year old” limestone, and on one side it’s said the display wasn’t hidden until 1967, on the other side it’s said it was hidden in 1881. What I see here is a war. Which side is giving the facts? While this is a difficult case to know for sure, I’d be more inclined to lean toward the creationist side of the story, as evolutionists don’t practice real science, but have an agenda to essentially kill God.

“If Cooper paid for an RC dating, and it came back "undatable," meaning over 50,000 years old, it'd certainly help his argument. So why doesn't he do it? Why doesn't Farrell? Why don't you?”

I can’t afford it, I work at Wal-Mart! Lol! But seriously, RC dating is not reliable even at younger ages.

Language

“Written records begin at around 4000 BC, but people were speaking long before that time.”

There were no people before that time. The reason you see written records beginning at 4,000 B.C. is because that’s when people were created! See how that works? God is telling the truth. Trust Him.

“Sanskrit is no more complex than English.”

Oh yes it is! My gosh, man! In English we don’t have all of our letters all running into each other and changing letters and forming new words. But you’d have to take a course in Sanskrit to fully understand it’s complexity in comparison to modern day English. All I can really say here is that myself and others disagree with you. You sweat a lot over references and such, and in this case Ferrell provides names and sources of people, including language experts who testify that language has evolved from complex to simple. But I’m guessing you’ll claim he’s “raping context” or something, so I don’t know if the refs would help you much, but they are there.

I understand what you are saying about learning complex written languages. If I were a child in that culture at that time learning that language, I might very well pick it up. And I didn’t say people would be uncapable of learning complex languages today. I was pointing out that ancient man was smart, having been created by God only recently, and that as we devolve our language follows suit and gets simpler over time. This was an argument in favor of God recently creating a fully mature intelligent man and woman, not whether it’s possible to learn these languages or not at this point in time.

“Devolution is the transfer of power from a central government to a local government. It's not the opposite of evolution.”

(Cue annoying buzzer sound). You are incorrect sir! Evolution claims we have evolved from soup into human beings (lol!), and in fact we are devolving, with an ever increasing genetic load. For as weak and as sick as we are getting, I’m amazed anyone can believe that we are supposedly evolving into ever better, more intelligent, more powerful, more complex creatures. We see the opposite of that happening. Devolution is simply a term to denote that fact.

I’ve read up some on the capabilities of ancient man, and am continuously astonished. So called “ancient man” was able to build and use things that are equal to or greater than our own technologies today. I’d tell you where you can find some good information, but you’d just blow it off as fake, so I think I’ll save you the trouble. Sorry, don’t mean to be rude, I just know it wouldn’t do any good, that’s all.

Bees

“But these are not modern bees. Melittosphex was 3 mm long, one-fifth the size of a honeybee, and not related to any living bee family.”

I don’t know if it was a specific bee like the ones you named or if it was another one. I’ll tell you this, though, that if a modern day looking bee was found encased in amber, it wouldn’t be proclaimed loudly to the public. We can’t have any evidence of creation and lack of evolution being reported after all. That’s a problem we often run into. If something is found, like a certain kind of bee that is extinct that won’t so much appear to support a recent creation, and one is found that hasn’t changed in all this time, only the former will be reported. It’s the same kind of thing that happens with the various dating methods. The dates that prove the evolutionary timeline wrong are swept under the rug, but boy howdy!, you can bet the dates that back up the myo and byo timeline are reported for all to see! I suspect such is the case with the bees. What I quoted you is a small part of a review of the worker bee, something evolution could not have produced.

Termites

“As complex as the mounds are, the termites themselves are vastly more complex. You’re asking me to explain something relatively simple.”

What you talkin’ about, Willis? Are you mad? Simple you say? Did you not finish reading the review of the termite towers? Yes the termite bodies are more complex, but what they do absolutely defies evolution. And I’m sorry, but the whole incredulity thing doesn’t work. It’s not matter of wonder, it’s common sense. Evolution could not ever, in a trillion trillion years, produce tiny creatures that can build towers like that. That kind of functional detailed complex construction has nothing to do with animals changing from one kind into another, (magic animals, lol!), but moreso having an intelligence and ability given to them by the hand of the living God.

Remember, His creation is evidence of His power and existence. Having seen all that He has made, as the apostle Paul wrote, you will have no excuse at all when you stand before the Lord. That is why I’ve hung in there with you for so long. I’m fighting for your life. Your eternal life. That’s worth working through 72 pages of your response and giving you every chance in the world. The terror you’ll experience standing before God as a guilty sinner is something I cannot even begin to put into words. Do what you will with what you know, but I implore you to choose God. He died for you, will you live for Him? Repentance of sin and faith in Jesus Christ is all it takes, and you will be saved.

As a closing thought on these five phases, may I conclude with a very short testimony that I hope gives you something to think about? I recently read some quotes about cause and effect, and how such a relation proves God on a personal level. For example, you can see how serious I am about the Lord, and how much I care to save people, and if you knew me personally, how much my heart has changed and how I opposed the ungodly things of the world, and so on. That’s the effect. What was the cause? What could so radically change my life, my heart, my entire thinking process? It wasn’t growing up in a Christian home. It wasn’t any kind of influence from any person. So what was the cause for my effect? It was God. No other reached me, led me to die to myself and be born again in Christ. I ask you to seriously ponder what I’m saying here. Cause and effect. God is the cause, my life is radically different as an effect. Something that doesn’t exist could hardly pull off such a feat. Please consider the Lord as you are still breathing. He is granting you that mercy and extending your time second by second, waiting to save you.

Part 6

I know you asked me not to reply to our side discussions, but I hope you will allow me to just the same. There are some things I’d like to address, and you have removed the discussions you especially didn’t think were relevant anyway, so I’d like to reply to what’s still here.

“So forgive me for crossing the line and being rude, as I'm sure I have been in these five phases. It's my zeal; I'm probably as passionate about my side as you are about yours. Though you've always been civil throughout the whole thing; for that you're probably a better man than I. So no hard feelings, I hope. You have been a worthy opponent.”

Safe to say both of us have zeal, eh? I know that some of my language can be strong too, but like you said it’s a result of zeal. I’ve not debated someone as smart as you, so it’s been a challenge. As to whether you continue on is up to you, but I wonder if it’s possible to make our responses any shorter? Lol!

“The real "point" of a debate is to win. I think I've won. In fact, I know I have. But you think the same, and (think) you know the same.”

If anything, I’d say God has won. I’ve related His truth and information about His creation as best I can. I’m just the messenger. But I really hate to think of it in terms of a winner and a loser, though.

“I think it's beyond my capcabilities to convince you of evolution as fact, just as you've acknoweldged it's beyond yours to convert me. So what are we doing? Where do you see this going?”

Hopefully it’s going to your conversion! While I possess no power to convert your heart and soul, God can use anything I’ve written in all this time to help lead you that direction.

“After debating with me for over a year, you should not be asking questions like "How, and why did each animal evolve into two seperate sexes?" You should be attacking the theory of evolution. I don't know what theory you thought you were attacking when you asked that question, but evolution it wasn't.”

I guess we disagree about that. I think that is one of those questions that directly attacks and utterly destroys evolution. All of the animals just happened to somehow evolve into different sexes at the same time so they could mate with each other? An impossibility.

“Hovind: I admit that his fake degree, and the fact that he's doing hard time in federal prison for tax evasion, and his questionable statements about the Jews, aren't relevant to his claims about science.”

Your attacks on Hovind fall short. Even as you say you address his claims, you still personally attack him. That’s something I’ve never understood. What matters is what he says is true or not, not his degree or wrongful incarceration or anything else. As for those matters, again, his degree is as real as any. There is nothing wrong with an unaccredited doctorate. Kent had to work his but off for it just like anyone else. To say it’s not real would be like me teaching a child of mine at home to be smarter than the kids at school, but he didn’t get a “real” diploma. In that case, that “real” diploma means diddly jack squat when compared to the work and accomplishment and intelligence of my child. The point is the work you do and what you learn, not what kind of piece of paper you end up holding in your hands. If you think that paper matters more than the work that was done, I must ask why you think so.

As for Kent’s jail time, I’m guessing you don’t know half the story. There is much to tell, and the actions taken against Kent are as illegal as can be. You are a paralegal, no? Then you may be interested in hearing the legalities about the case. Here are two links for your information:

http://www.penaltyprotester.com/files/LindseyHovindTrialReport.pdf http://www.penaltyprotestor.org/files/LindseyHovindCounts13through57.pdf

“Farrell: Yes, I was rather nasty with him, wasn't I? I'd do it again in a heartbeat. Farrell is a nasty man. I don't see how he can legitimately call himself a Christian. (Exodus 20:16).”

As I said, the more a creationist disproves evolution, the more you will hate them. Creation means you have to answer to God, and since you were born with an inherited sin nature just like the rest of us, you are not comfortable with creation. So attack the men if you like, but it’s their message of creation that ultimately gets you. I know, I know. I can’t read you mind, and this is about science. But trust me, the message these men speak of that involves God is more offensive to you than anything, you just don’t know it yet. But you will.

“By the way, I've always been curious as to why Christians don't refer to their god by name?”

God has many names and titles in the Bible. The main ones are God, Lord, and Jesus Christ. Yahweh is not how the Lord‘s name was written, even in the original scripts, but rather it is a man made modification of the ineffable tetragramatton, YHWH. When we say God, Lord, or Jesus, we are in fact referring to God by His name.

“You don't think we can prove or disprove 6-day creation, or evolution (interchangeable for this purpose) with our intellects and the tools and methods of our intellects?”

No, because evolution is a religious belief that affects your interpretation of science rather than seeing it as it is. You would think that in the realm of empirical study that your evolutionary beliefs won’t affect what you can clearly see, and yet it does. A phrase you’ve heard me say a few times rings true: two people with opposing world views (intelligent design versus evolution) can look at the same thing and come to opposite conclusions. So no, I don’t think your intellect is a standard for determining truth. Absolute truth comes from God, that way He gets the glory and your intellect doesn’t.

“To me, there is NO WAY this universe is 6000 years old. I mean, you've got to be kidding me. How can you look at something so vast and incomprehensible, and possibly think it's 6000 years old? Why, on Earth, would you want to demean it like that? What? Does the sheer, mind-boggling immensity of time and space terrify you? Isn't a 6000-year-old universe a bit...claustrophobic for your tastes?”

If you were familiar with the creative power of God, you would know it is no problem for Him to create such a vast universe instantly by His spoken word. Don’t take the vastness of space to mean God couldn’t have done it only 6,000 years ago. Time is not a hinderance for God. When He created man, the universe was only six DAYS old! When you look up at and ponder the universe you are seeing the heavens declaring the glory of God. Not only do we have His word that speaks of creation, but by sheer common sense you can look at the heavens and know that it is not at all possible for the universe to have made itself. By the way, that’s not incredulity. It’s using your head.

“And 6-day creation, and everything being created "perfect," and the whole exhaltation of stasis over change--everything about Christian cosmology--is really ugly to me.”

Oh, I’ve known that the whole time. Things of the faith are repulsive to those not saved. That’s very common. And on a level maybe deeper than you are aware of, there is a reason why. You and I, and everyone else, are born with a sin nature that is opposed to God. Therefore, anything of the faith, to include things like creation, the fall of man, Commandments we are required to obey, how we deserve eternal hell, and so on, are sickening to those who don’t know God. That comes from the unregenerate state of man, who is spiritually dead and spiritually blind.

“If you are fallible, then you can be wrong about whether God exists, and if he does, who he is, what he says, and where he says it. If you are fallible, there is every chance you've chosen the wrong religion. I expect you'll say you didn't choose God, God chose you. You could be wrong about that.”

Incorrect. When God does choose you, there is no mistaking it. It would be like dropping a bowling ball on your bare foot. You know it when it happens! And since it’s Him doing it, you can’t be wrong about it as a fallible person. God doesn’t leave that option open for you. He lets you know.

“The way I read it, Genesis is the story of a failed creation. God made man and woman, and they chose sin. God either meant for this to happen, or he didn't. I assume he didn't. Correct me if I'm wrong.”

I would say you are wrong. I’ll get into the issue of free will shortly, but the fall of man was not a mistake, it was part of God’s plan. I’ll explain. God is so great that He deserves as much glory as is possible. His plan for the ages gives Him that. Here’s the plan, with it’s glory, in a nutshell: God creates man who sins against Him, and lives in a fallen, sinful state in rebellion against the Lord. For sin, man deserves hell. But God shows us His amazing mercy and grace in dying for us and paying the penalty on our behalf, that we may be redeemed and live in His future restored creation, eternally glorifying Him with our praise, service, love, loyalty, worship, and fellowship. God is glorified in His grace (unmerited favor) to save us through the death of Jesus Christ on the cross for us.

That said, the fall of man fit into God’s plan for the purpose of showing His mercy and grace and redeeming us through Christ, giving God great glory. By doing so, God also chose not to force man to follow Him, but gave him a choice. That leads me to your other comments regarding free will. But first, this comment:

“God created Adam and Eve, and didn't want them to sin, and yet they did. A failed creation. A mistake.”

There is no mistake. I already said why, but I just want to be clear, because you said this is a core reason for your rejection of God. Of course God doesn‘t want people sinning against Him, however, He knew that man would and thus the fall of man was part of God’s overall plan to glorify Himself by redeeming sinful man who is guilty before the Lord and only deserves eternal hell. Now, onto the issue of free will.

“The argument of free will: Adam and Eve chose sin; they bought it on themselves. This argument fails. God created everything about Adam and Eve, including their attraction to sin, their weak will, their poor judgment, etc. Clearly, they were not perfect.”

I am very glad you told me this sort of thing is your main reason for rejecting God. You are misunderstanding things here, so I would very much like to explain the matter a little further. In comparison to God, Adam and Eve were not perfect as God is perfect. I disagree that man’s ability and propensity to sin is a lack of perfection in God’s creation. It was Adam and Eve who chose to sin, and God had nothing to do with it. People have a tendency to blame God for Adam‘s sin, but it was Adam who chose to sin. How can you blame God for what someone else chose to do? I understand you think Adam’s sin was due to a design flaw, but that is incorrect. It was due to man’s free will, and Eve’s deception by Satan. But most importantly, your final comment on the matter has me most concerned:

“So, God created imperfect creatures, expected perfection of them, and punished them for not being perfect. This, among other things, is why Yahweh has always seemed like a rather perverse and capricious character to me, and is a core part of my rejection of the Christian religion.”

One way for me to explain this would be to rewrite your first sentence here in a Biblically correct manner: “God created sinless man with a free will, commanded him to obey, and punished him when he transgressed against Him“. To fault God for doing so would be like faulting a judge for punishing a guilty criminal. God has every right to punish man, who is guilty. If God were to have made man with no ability to sin, then we’d all be forced against our will to obey and serve God forever, whether we like it or not. So while you see Adam’s ability to sin and God’s command not to, followed by punishment as being evil, it is actually the love of God to give man that choice and that ability. Otherwise, we’d be forced to follow God. Be glad God gave Adam, and you, a choice. That’s not perverse, it’s a gift.

“You accuse me of rejecting all science done by Christians--which is untrue, I could rattle off a list of Christian scientists I respect highly. Let me know if you're interested.”

I’m aware of your idea of science by Christians. Remember, any of us can say we are a Christian, but saying it and actually dying to ourselves and being born again in Jesus Christ can be two different things. Many of the “Christians” you speak of are what we call false converts. In other words, not the real thing. Everybody wants to carry the name of Christ for a free ticket to heaven, but the false science practiced by some of these people reveals their true motives which strongly indicate a lack of actual salvation. To further explore this issue, I would like to offer you a friendly reminder to go see Ben Stein’s documentary “Expelled” which is supposed to be in theaters starting April 18th.

“Because the facts don't fit the foregone conclusion, it is necessary for creationists to misrepresent and/or misinterpret the facts.”

You are describing exactly what evolutionists do. Since they don’t believe in the Biblical God, they will only accept science that supports their preconceived theories. Anything else means we have to bow down to the Lord, and we just can’t have that. A creationist, on the other hand, is more likely to practice and interpret science properly. Yes, they do already believe in creation, but they don’t practice false science to fit that belief as does the evolutionist/atheist.

“Steve, I came across a news story I found quite interesting; you might want to check it out. http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22924256-29277,00.html I think it illustrates the kind of thing that can happen when a true believer becomes crazed with the love of Christ.”

It’s a common mistake to assume that just because somebody says they are a Christian that in fact they are. This is not true. I can’t say for sure about this guy, but we do have a clue from the article, besides the stabbing itself:

“Although the altercation had been defused by the time the Scottish tourists left the hotel, it became inflamed again at the caravan park when all three were quite drunk.”

A drunkard who stabs someone who disagrees with him? He’s probably as saved as a former coworker I just talked to a few days ago who curses, smokes, drinks, and has nothing to do with God at all. Remember, to be an actual Christian, a person must DIE to themselves and have faith in Christ. If a person is still drinking and stabbing people, it’s safe to say he didn’t die to himself, but is still the same unregenerate person he always was, lacking the Holy Spirit and the new birth.

Speaking of the new birth, you know I just have to end my response with a personal plea. All arguments regarding science aside, more than anything God wants to redeem you. Let Him do so. Pray for God to reveal Himself to you. Try putting one foot out there and exercising even a little bit of faith. It may help to do one thing. Try focusing on everything you know that you may do or believe that the Bible says is sin, soften your conscious and allow it to accuse you, in order to understand the magnitude of your guilt before God, and then focus on what Jesus Christ did on the cross for you. I say this because if you can be contrite over your guilt before the Lord, and understand He still died a violent death in your place to save you, it should break your heart and drive you to Him. There is nothing more important than your eternal salvation. Try reading this tract and let it’s message hit home: http://www.livingwaters.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=235

More than anything I want you saved. Say what you will about science on either side of the debate, your eternal salvation far outweighs any scientific matter. And our guilt before God demands an answer. What will yours be?

Steve

Done.

Goodbye.

Goodbye. Take care, dear sir.