And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the Judgment;
Boast not thyself of tomorrow; for thou knowest not what a day may bring forth.
“Lord, thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations. Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.” Psalm 90:1-2. Thus does the Bible re-affirm creation as coming from God, but uniquely here as a birth from God. The term “brought forth” is in the ancient Hebrew language “Yalad” which mean “to give birth to.” Think with me for a minute or two.
In the relentless search for human mastery, science has learned that all material is made up of atoms. But we must know what the basic building block of material is. So with progress, man achieved the splitting of the atom. It was found that all atoms are made up of neutrons, protons, and electrons. Are these the most basic components of all material? No. It has been more recently discovered that these are made up of smaller building blocks called quarks. But the attempts to split a quark to see what it is made of has been unsuccessful to date. Men have made vaunted progress on most all fronts in these end-time days, but they still do not know what material really is. Incidentally, all of these components of material are themselves invisible to the human eye. So, just what is material anyway? The far reaches of science must limit itself to explaining it as quarks combined to make electrons, protons, and neutrons which combine to made atoms which combine to make all known material elements. So, if all material is made from the same components how is one material expression stone, another wood, another earth, etc. Puzzles can be fun.
How much easier it is for the man of faith to simply believe the Bible! Material, whatever its basic components are came directly from God Who describes these things as a birth from Him. They express themselves in various different forms according to His command and direct will. True science is defined as “systematized facts” and the fact is that men will not produce anything factual that contradicts the Holy Word. One wonders just how many man hours and tax dollars could be saved if men would simply admit the component of faith into their lives!
Christian scientists are touting the recent discovery of amber-encased lizards as evidence of a recent creation as described in the Bible.
Last month, the journal Science Advances published a detailed analysis of amber-embedded lizards, estimated to be approximately 99 million years old. Thanks to the “extraordinary preservation” qualities of the amber, scientists were able to observe intricate details on the lizard specimens.
“Amber deposits are especially useful for preserving small, delicate organisms that are seldom represented as lithified remains or, as fragmentary microvertebrate elements, are often overlooked,” the journal article explains. “This is critical because most lizards are small-bodied.”
A diverse array of species were preserved in the amber, including several that are similar to lizards today.
“In the amber we have things that are clearly gecko,” said Edward Stanley, one of the report’s authors, according to The Christian Science Monitor. “Even 100 million years ago geckos apparently already had evolved a well-diversified subset of tools for clinging onto surfaces.”
The similarity between today’s lizards and these preserved lizards from the past is a tricky subject for evolutionists. Did no evolution occur over those 99 million years?
“The encased organisms show no evidence for evolution between creature kinds,” wrote Brian Thomas of the Institute for Creation Research in an article published last week. “Instead, the dozen lizards fall neatly into five modern lizard categories. For example, the researchers found life-like modern geckos and even identified a tiny chameleon fossil.”
Thomas pointed out that other modern creatures, including scorpions, roaches, ants, and termites, have all been found in the ancient amber, indicating “that no evolution between kinds has happened since their golden entombment.”
“All this amber evidence urges the question: Did the 99 million years really happen?” he wrote.
Thomas believes the amber-encased specimens are best understood through a biblical perspective, where the amber is thousands—not millions—of years old and the lizards are the products of creation—not evolution.
“Only minor variations within basic kinds happen today—and that’s exactly what we see in these amber specimens,” Thomas said. “This means that lizards living with dinosaurs looked like lizards that live today, which fits the Bible’s perspective of recent creation.”
In a similar commentary, Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell of Answers in Genesis rebuts evolutionists’ claims on the preserved lizards, saying evidence for evolution in this discovery simply does not exist.
“There is no evidence for upward evolution through a transitional form in this lizard’s amber tomb—just evidence for the sort of variation that ordinarily occurs within the created kinds of animals God made,” she wrote in an online article published on Friday. “Despite their supposed great age, these lizards, according to the scientists that studied them, display modern features and still have counterparts in today’s Old World tropical forests. Why haven’t 99 million years of evolution changed lizards more? Could it be that they aren’t really so old?”
Furthermore, Mitchell explained, the claim that the amber dates back nearly 100 million years is suspect.
“The age assigned to the amber encasing these lizards should not be accepted because it is based on some assumptions which are not only unverifiable but demonstrably untrue,” she asserted.
“So the lizard collection preserved in Myanmar demonstrates nothing about the reptile evolution over millions of years but only the variations that had developed among the kinds of lizards created by God,” Mitchell concluded.
Posted: 10 Apr 2016 07:14 PM PDT
Don Boys, Ph.D.
Evidently the three college professors who wrote to the Chattanooga newspaper were not well-read in the current literature. They seem to be where they were during their college days but those days are long gone. Let me provide some up-to-date information that will help honest and inquiring minds make a judgment on the controversy of origins.
Only an uninformed fanatic says that evolution or creation can be proved scientifically. Christians believe in creationism because we believe in the veracity of the Bible but we also have scientific evidence to support our position.
In every debate I’ve had with evolutionary scientists, the arrogant, asinine accusation is made, “Well, evolution is science while creationism is religion.” Evolution is about as scientific as a voodoo rooster-plucking ceremony in Haiti. Almost.
Science means to know and systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, etc. It is based on observation and experimentation. Evolutionists don’t “know” anything about man’s origins. They guess, suppose, speculate, etc., but they don’t know. Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing, convoluted, and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science. They have watched their colleagues rush to defend Darwin rather than putting him to rigorous tests.
World famous scientist G. G. Simpson stated, “It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about anything…or at the very best, they are not science.” Neither creationism nor evolution can be observed or tested.
Need I remind my readers of the many incredible mistakes made by evolutionists because of their faith: Haeckel’s recapitulation theory that only third-rate scientists believe; also the vestigial organ error; the failure of the fossil record (that no informed evolutionist uses to prove his position), etc.
Let me dwell on the fossil record since most people assume it supports evolution. It does not.
Dr. David Kitts, professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma, said, “Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them….” And Lord Zuckerman admitted there are no “fossil traces” of transformation from an ape-like creature to man! I assume that all college professors know that Darwin admitted the same fact. I also assume they know that Darwin was not trained as a scientist but for the ministry, so evolutionists are worshipping at the feet of an apostate preacher!
Famous fossil expert, Niles Eldredge confessed, “…geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them.” Dr. Eldredge further said, “…no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures.”
World famous paleontologist Colin Patterson agreed saying, “there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.” Not one.
All the alleged transitional fossils, that were so dear to the hearts of evolutionists a generation ago, are now an embarrassment to them. Breaks my heart! Archaeopteryx is now considered only a bird, not an intermediate fossil. The famous horse series that is still found in some textbooks and museums has been discarded and is considered a phantom and illusion because it is not proof of evolution. In fact, the first horse in the series is no longer thought to be a horse! And when a horse can’t be counted on being a horse then of course we’ve got trouble, real trouble right here in River City.
Surely it is not necessary for me to remind college professors that Piltdown Man was a total fraud and Nebraska Man turned out to be a pig’s tooth, not an ape man! And in recent years we have discovered that Neanderthal Man was simply a man with rickets and arthritis, not the much desired “ape man.” Need I go on? The truth is that only a fool says evolution is a fact as compared to gravity, and to equate scientific creationists with flat earthers as some evolutionists do is outrageous irresponsibility.
Dr. Soren Lovtrup, Professor of Zoo-physiology at the University of Umea in Sweden, wrote, “I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar ‘Darwinian’ vocabulary…thereby believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events.” He went on to say, “I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science.” He also said, “Evolution is ‘anti-science.’” And so it is.
Do those who teach evolution know that scientists have characterized Darwinism asspeculation, based on faith, similar to theories of little green men, dead, effectively dead, very flimsy, incoherent, and a myth. Hey, with friends like that, evolutionists don’t need scientific creationists to hold their feet to the fire. Nevertheless, our public school textbooks and teachers, even up to most colleges and some universities, are not up to date on current thought. Did you get that–current “thought”?
I have assumed that the three college professors are familiar with all the world famous scientists I quoted above. All of them! If not, they are really uninformed, and should stay out of the evolution/creation discussion until they spend some time to bring themselves up to date.
So you see evolutionists are dishonest or uninformed when they suggest that creationists are backwoods, snake handling fanatics. In fact, over a thousand scientists with advanced degrees belong to one group that takes a stand for scientific creationism and against the guess of evolution.
Those college professors were correct in stating that Darwin’s book does not deal with the origins of life even though its title was Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. So a book about origins does not deal with the beginning of life!
Later Darwin suggested that life began in a warm little pond, but he never suggested where the pond came from! Most evolutionists teach that life started there also, but scientists have proved conclusively that spontaneous generation is impossible. So where did the first spark of life come from? You think maybe God was involved?
And would it be possible to remind everyone that Darwin and his followers were racists who believed that blacks were closer to the nonexistent ape men than whites? Thomas Huxley, Henry F. Osborne, Professor Edwin Conklin, and others preached white superiority – because of their evolutionary bias. The haters for a hundred years after Darwin can be tied to Darwin starting with Nietzsche (who asserted that God was dead, called for the breeding of a master race and for the annihilation of millions of misfits), followed by Hitler, Mussolini, Marx, Engels, Stalin, etc. Evolutionary teachings have resulted in soaking the soil of Europe in innocent blood. After all, evolutionists tell us that man is only a little higher than the animals rather than a little lower than the angels as the Bible teaches, so what’s a few million lives to be concerned about?
I don’t have the space to deal with numerous problems that evolutionists have such as the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, origin of the universe, beginning of life from non-living matter, the Cambrian explosion, etc.
Evolution is a guess, a speculation, a hypothesis, a theory, and a faith. Yes, evolution is a religion as I document in my book, Evolution: Fact, Fraud or Faith? And, since it is a faith, it should not be taught in public schools. At least, any thinking, honest person would agree that if it is, then scientific creationism should be taught along with it. After all, we do believe in balance and fairness, don’t we? Or do we?
Sorry, professors, evolution is NOT a fact. It is a fraud, a fake, a farce and a faith, and taxpayers should demand that the religion of evolution be kept out of public schools unless the truth of scientific creationism is taught as well.
Boys’ new book, Evolution: Fact, Fraud, or Faith? was published this week by Barbwire Books; to get your copy of Evolution: Fact, Fraud, or Faith? click here . An eBook edition is also available.
(Dr. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives; ran a large Christian school in Indianapolis, wrote columns for USA Today for eight years; authored 15 books and hundreds of columns and articles for Internet and print media publications; defended his beliefs on hundreds of talk shows. These columns go to newspapers, magazines, television, and radio stations and may be used without change from title through the end tag. His web sites are www.cstnews.com and www.Muslimfact.com and www.thegodhaters.com. Contact Don for an interview or talk show.)
(Publisher’s note: I am a Fundamentalist, but in this context, in that I am limited in the amount of words, I am happy to bear offense for the Cross of Christ with our Evangelical brethren.)
Cartoon Caption: “We Southern Evangelicals simply Believe that the world is better off when the Law Reinforces our Religious Beliefs…
Muslim Hooded Terrorist – Holding a bloody knife says – “Ditto.” He also has a suicide bomb pack around his belly with the words, “ISIS” printed on it.
Mr. Matt Reed
Dear Mr. Reed
Marlette is off target in his cartoon (4-3-16) when he refers to the “law” reinforcing the “religious beliefs” of “Southern Evangelicals.” All Evangelicals, regardless of geography, are only interested, as our founding fathers such as the first six Presidents, and all civilized people through the centuries, that “the law” (Ten Commandments) be upheld by “the law” (The State), which is the moral code as represented in the second table of the Commandments, not the doctrinal code which was represented in the first table of the Ten Commandments. The first was man’s duty toward God, the other was his duty toward man, such as murder, lying, stealing, adultery which also includes the setting of definitions, as to the meaning of the sexes, and the family. The First Amendment was dealing with “religion” in a doctrinal, not moral sense. In other words there was to be no State Religion or doctrine such as Lutheran, Catholic, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc. To have no moral code would be moral anarchy which we are on the verge of now, which will result in the total collapse of our nation which has happened to great civilizations in the past.
Now if the State does not enforce the moral code, nothing would be left but vigilantism and then the final break down of all law and order, which is anarchy. Some of us believe that this is where the enemies of America are hoping to lead us, if this is true, possibly likening a large segment of our religious community to Muslim extremists with a bloody knife, which could be nothing farther from the truth, would be a good place to start.
Rev. Greg J. Dixon
Assoc. National Chairman
Greg J. Dixon, D.D.
199 Cleveland Way
Rockledge, Florida 32955
Don Boys, Ph.D.
Evangelicals are usually very sensitive as to what people say and think about them whereas the driving force for Fundamentalists generally is not their perception by others, but their faithfulness to Scripture. Many years ago Evangelicals sold their souls for respectability. However, genuine Christians will always be persecuted and scorned as Paul wrote in I Cor. 4:13, “We are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day.” Evangelicals will polish all the liberal apples and “make a deal with the devil” to gain the favor and acceptance of polite society, seeking to fit in rather than follow the Scriptures.
In the late 40s, pastors who rejected strict Bible teaching associated with other pastors of the same opinion and began to disavow the term, “Fundamentalist.” Some felt fundamentalism was a term of honor, but others decided it had become an embarrassment. These men, given the New Evangelical label, went their own way, started their own schools and journals, and moved to the top of Mount Olympus away from uncouth Fundamentalists. It started in 1947 with Carl F. Henry’s book, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism which strongly criticized Fundamentalist separation from unbelievers, so Evangelicals separated from Fundamentalists!
Soft Fundamentalists, called “New Evangelicals,” got as uncomfortable as a dog in hot ashes when preachers or authors demanded separation from the world and from religious unbelief. Fundamentalists taught, “Come on out” while the New Evangelicals taught, “Stay in and fight.” Two problems with that: it is disobedience to the Word and they didn’t do any fighting. They talked but refused to fight. Compromising Evangelicals seldom barked and never bit anyone. Most Evangelical leaders are not toothless but they are spineless.
Dr. Harold Ockenga started the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) in 1947 as dissatisfaction was simmering throughout fundamental churches. Desiring to be known as “intellectuals,” New Evangelicals ended up with pseudo-intellectualism. They started Fuller Seminary taking the name and reputation of old time Fundamentalist Charles E. Fuller; however, the seminary was a poor imitation of historic Christianity. It is even more so today.
R.C. Sproul, Jr. (himself an Evangelical) said that an Evangelical is a Fundamentalist who wants the respect of Modernists, and sells his soul to get it. Some wags would say that Evangelicals are better at selling souls than saving souls. Sproul added, “We evangelicals are they who cut this deal with the Modernists, ‘We will call you brother, if you will call us scholar.’” Ah, yes, “scholar.” That is the driving desire of most Evangelicals–intellectual respectability.
Sometimes, the strict Fundamentalists were not very intellectual plus they sometimes wore shiny vinyl shoes and white socks with a blue suit and clip-on tie! Gasp! We were told that the alleged anti-intellectualism of Fundamentalists made it impossible to win Modernist preachers; however, the problem with the Modernist was not his self-professed intellectualism but his unspoken, unacknowledged, and unconfessed sin. This intellectualism argument is one of the main strings Evangelicals pluck ad nauseam and it smacks of arrogance and elitism.
Evangelical leader Billy Graham hit the big time in his Los Angeles Tent Crusade in 1949. In 1956, Graham, his father-in-law Nelson Bell, and Harold Ockenga started the magazine Christianity Today. Since that time, CT has been the obedient and reliable mouthpiece for loosey-goosey Evangelicalism.
Graham was the most successful promoter of “ecumenical evangelism” or “cooperative evangelism.” Few Fundamentalists would object to cooperative evangelism but see compromise, compliance, and corruption in ecumenical evangelism. Billy Graham, in order to reach the masses, decided that he would cooperate with unbelieving religious leaders, contrary to his former assurances to Bob Jones, John R. Rice, William B. Riley and others. He decided that he would preach anywhere under any sponsorship as long as there were no strings attached. At first blush that may sound noble and desirable but it is the anteroom to compromise.
After 1949, in Graham’s crusades the leading unbelieving pastors were in control, making decisions, leading in prayer, while the few Fundamentalists sat in the shadows. Often Billy sneered at Fundamentalists and refused to be called one, although it is a fact that Fundamentalists educated him and gave him his start in evangelism.
Thousands of times, Fundamentalist pastors in various cities served faithfully preaching the Word, and then Graham came to town insisting on cooperating with unbelieving religious leaders for his crusade. That compromise is the most visible difference in fundamentalism and evangelicalism. It is a fact that many Christians who defend Graham would never put up with their pastor calling lost pastors, even Catholic priests, their brothers and recommending their work.
One can discuss and debate whether ecumenical evangelism is scriptural or not but if II John 10-11 is right then such compromise is sinful. However, it is not debatable that Graham has colluded and compromised, but has never challenged unbelievers who supported his crusades. His cooperation with these pastors endorsed their false ministries. The fact that some people trusted Christ in the crusades is no justification for clear disobedience to Scripture.
I have often noticed the defensive, defiant, and distasteful attitude that many Evangelicals have toward Fundamentalists. Not sure, but I think they are guilt-ridden over their cowardice in facing the truth and making amends for a lifetime of compromise. I invite the guilt-stricken Evangelicals to “come home” to the roots of their fathers. All will be forgiven and I for one will personally kill, dress, and barbeque the fatted calf, wash off the stink of the pigpen, put a ring on their finger, shoes on their feet and may even dance a jig (solo, of course) upon their return.
The split should not have happened in midcentury and the breach can be healed. The last sixty plus years were summed up by R. C. Sproul, Jr. in “Our Fundamentalist Betters.” “The fundamentalists of the last century were laughed at and scorned. And for that they earned the praise of Jesus. May we find the courage not only to affirm the fundamentals, but may we be given a double portion of the spirit of the fundamentalists. They fought the good fight, while we collaborated. They kept the faith, while we merely kept our positions in our communities. May we learn to fear no man, and to fear God. For such is the beginning of wisdom.”
That says it all. Are you fitting in or following on?
(Dr. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives, author of 15 books, frequent guest on television and radio talk shows, and wrote columns for USA Today for 8 years. Three years ago, the second edition of ISLAM: America’s Trojan Horse! was published, and his new eBook,The God Haters is available for $9.99 from www.thegodhaters.com. These columns go to newspapers, magazines, television, and radio stations. His other web sites are www.cstnews.com and www.Muslimfact.com. Contact Don for an interview or talk show.)
YOU ARE AN ABOMINATION!
Now hold on just a minute, dear reader! Be slow to offense! Think with me a minute, and I am certain you will rejoice in the meaning of the title of this article. Of course, normally this word “abomination” carries with it only negative, abhorrent connotations, but there really is something valuable to consider here. It is embodied in the words of Solomon in Proverbs 29:27. “An unjust man is an abomination to the just: and he that is upright in the way is abomination to the wicked.”
The idea presented by the word “abomination” in the ancient language denotes that which is to be considered unclean, detestable, disgusting, to be abhorred, etc. Certainly those ideas remain in the English translation.
Consider that the aforementioned verse of scripture sets forth reciprocal action. It means that everyone is indeed an abomination to someone. Therefore the important question to be answered is not “are you an abomination?” but “to whom are you an abomination?” The unjust man may be a dirty addict on skid row or a morally upright man determined to live life his own way in outright opposition to the teachings of the Holy Word. Across the spectrum of these tangents the just find those ways of life to be an abomination; to be avoided; ways to warn their young ones against. On the other hand, those who are upright in the Lord’s way of life are held in similar disgust and abomination by those who are wicked.
So, there is no escaping it. Everyone is an abomination to someone. Furthermore, both the just and the unjust will stand before Him Who created, owns, and will judge all things and all people. That being true, should it ever really be a question as to whom you want to be considered an abomination?
Ancient Joshua called all Israel to this decision long, long ago. He challenged Israel, saying: Choose you this day whom you will serve, but, as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord!
The children of the King must not look with longing eyes to the din, noise, and gaiety of the world’s crowd, with whom to be popular is death, rather they should revel in the sweet knowledge of being children of the King, citizens of heaven, and, yes, an abomination to them that perish. Those who realize this as their status, have all the reasons in the world to rejoice.
William Andrew Dillard
PLEASE TELL ME
Easter Sunday, 2016 has come and gone, but it evoked questions in the minds of some who would like more information. This is an attempt to provide such for further thought.
Q. Exactly what day of the week was Jesus crucified, and how can one know for sure?
Q Exactly when was the vail of the Temple torn into two pieces, and just what is that supposed to mean?
Q. Exactly when did the earthquake occur in connection with the crucifixion of Jesus?
Q. Exactly when did the great number of saints arise from the graves to be seen in Jerusalem?
Q. Exactly why did Jesus forbid Mary to touch Him near the garden tomb, yet invited the disciples to freely feel his body?
To answer the first question, addressing the day of Jesus’ crucifixion must acknowledge the considerable controversy in the religious world about the specific day. The popular (Catholic) position is that it occurred on Friday. Others say Thursday, and still others believe it was Wednesday. This writer belongs to the Wednesday group. But think, and do the math. Jesus said in comparison to Jonah’s stay in the fish belly, that He would be in the grave three days and three nights. He could have just said three days or He could have just said three nights which would fuel confusion. But He said three days and three nights. He was buried near 6:00p.m., the beginning of a new day. Jewish time reckons a solar day from 6:00 p.m. to 6:00.p.m. Thus what we could call Wednesday night, Thursday night and Friday night would constitute three nights. Then, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday would constitute three days. He was already gone before daylight on Sunday morning, indicating His resurrection was sometime after 6:00 p.m. Saturday evening, the beginning of the first day of the week. Of course, this understanding is derived from the belief that Jesus literally meant what He said when specifically mentioning three days and three nights. So, it goes without controversy that He was risen very early on the first day of the week. Just start there and do the math in subtraction. Wherever the previous three days and three nights take you, that will be the discovery of the day of the crucifixion. It may seem a small matter in light of His glorious resurrection, but the Word is still the Word, and truth is still truth regardless of its denial by some. (To be continued).
From the Pastor: James Harris
Heb 12:1 Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,
Quite often in the Scriptures the Christian life is compared to running a race. Obviously, there are similarities, or the Apostle Paul would not have used the illustration.
In Hebrews 12:1 Paul lists two activities which are absolutely necessary if one is to successfully complete the race. First of all, the runner must put off all unnecessary weight. There is a reason runners do not compete in street clothes and dress shoes. For one, they weigh too much and would be a hindrance to their running. Similarly, there are weights and sins that we, as God’s people, carry around. These are detrimental to our efforts in running this race of the Christian life. What is “the sin which doth so easily beset us?” It is one you (or I) are most fond of. It may be something different for different people, but it is that area of our lives where Satan knows he can take advantage of us. God’s Word says we are to lay this sin aside, to get it far away from us, so that we do not give it opportunity in our lives.
The other thing we must do is “run with patience the race that is set before us.” Patience speaks of endurance. I have encountered people in races that, for one reason or another, were unable to finish. They didn’t endure. Maybe some began the race too fast and were overtaken by fatigue. Others might not have trained properly and just weren’t ready for the race. Still others may have expected an easy course and when faced with difficulties, dropped out. All of these remind me of various types of believers. Some burst on the scene, wanting to be involved in everything, but they soon burn out. Others make a good start, but because they are not properly trained in the Word, they falter and fall by the wayside. The third group finds the going a lot more difficult than they imagined and decide to quit.
It is my prayer that we will be a people well-trained and given to endurance.