Monday, February 12, 2018

miscellaneous creation info

After a couple of years of administating the facebook group "literal Fundamental Creationists"
I have collected notes and links of added information. I focused on youtube links that were not on my normal channels and things I did not normally access.   Enjoy!
kent vs berkely

petrification kent hovind
edward bordreaux

darren marlar

doreen finkle show


yecheadquaters flood youtube


evolution hoaxes
liberal christian band

Drake equation

e coli
by ikester7579
A_e_coliI was debating an atheist the other day and they left a link to a site where they were doing a long-term experiment. He said that because they were able to get 50,000 generations out of E coli, that proved evolution. In which I responded: You still don’t get it. After 50,000 generations was the E coli still E coli? Of course he knew where I was going with this and refused to address the question.
Ignoring that evolution always misses steps to actually proving itself does not make it true. There is a reason that a person must first understand that there are no absolutes before they can understand evolution. The reality of believing there are no absolutes means truth becomes a huge grey area. And anyone can take an idea like evolution and make it look true without it actually being true.
The other problem associated with this, is that atheists like to make micro and macro evolution sound like the same thing. Or that micro to infinity proves macro. The problem with this logic is 2 fold.
If they are one in the same, why give them different names?
Claiming micro to infinity makes macro evolution leaves out one very important step. And that is to know if there are limitations to micro evolution that would keep it from equaling macro evolution. Because unless this can be tested and observed a huge assumption is being made that micro will = macro with no problems. That’s not science.
Assuming with no observation leaves a huge door open to be proven wrong.
debunking evolution
baby brain stem mt st helen  peer review episode

Rhino video carbon 14 dino fish fossils protein probability vardiman RATE  anti-matter

******** 101 arguments!…/60-000-antelope-died-four-days-no-…
Also see this article, "Mass Animal Death Events Worldwide"

fake pelvis

end times earth

spike psarris  Teno

***  hydroplate    brain

One of the forefathers of the megachurch movement endorses a pro evolution ministry.
""A wise, constructive rapprochement between faith and science is one of the world’s urgent needs, and this need will only intensify as the global era raises a host of new ethical issues. Few people have the expertise, wisdom, and prestige to make such a contribution. I welcome BioLogos warmly.
" - Dr. Os Guinness, Author and Social Critic - See more at:


RICHARD DAWKINS MAKES ANOTHER BLUNDER IN HIS DEFENSE OF FAIRY TALES (Friday Church News Notes, November 13, 2015,,, 866-295-4143) - The following is excerpted from “Richard Dawkins Chides a Real Scientist,” Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis, Nov. 2, 2015: “On CNN, November 1, TV host Fareed Zakaria interviewed atheist/religious zealot Richard Dawkins. And no surprise, Dawkins, in his usual disparaging style, derided anyone who believes God created the universe and all life and who reject the fairy-tale belief that all life arose by natural processes. Dawkins particularly disparaged Dr. Ben Carson, running for US President. In this interview, Dawkins made the false claim (that he’s made many times) that ‘evolution is the bedrock of biology and biology is the bedrock of medicine.’ He went on to say this about Dr. Carson: ‘He clearly doesn’t understand the fundamental theorem of his own subject. That is a terrible indictment.’ Actually, by making such an ignorant and nonsensical statement, Dawkins is disproving his own accusation! Obviously, Dr. Carson didn’t need to believe in evolution to become a world-renowned pediatric neurosurgeon with sophisticated skills at age 33, receive 67 honorary doctorate degrees, separate conjoined twins, become a member of the Alpha Honor Medical Society, be named to the Horatio Alger Society of Distinguished Americans, be picked by Time magazine as one of the nation's 20 foremost physicians and scientists, for the Library of Congress to select him as one of 89 ‘Living Legends’ ... along with many other accomplishments. How does that impressive list line up with what Richard Dawkins has accomplished in this world? And if Dr. Carson can achieve all these accomplishments without believing in evolution, what then does evolution have to do with medicine? As I challenged TV’s Bill Nye ‘the Science Guy’ (and I have also challenged Dawkins), name one technological advancement (including one medical advancement) that could not have come about without a belief in evolution? Well, there are no such examples. Evolution is not the ‘bedrock’ of biology or medicine! Evolution is a fairy tale, akin to Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs!”

***  mastodon monkey unclean meat monkey song crystal bernard

So it is my theory that in extension to the inclusion of evolution into Christian theology the doctrine of atonement will suffer. The reason is that an old earth means that there was death before the Fall making death not the result of Man's sin, and blood not a real means of atoning for that sin. Therefore evolutionary "christians" will want to veer away from the the literal blood propitiation of our sins.
Tonight I was looking through a systematic theology. "God, Man & Salvation" a "biblical theology" of 3 Nazerene denomination theologians W.T. Purkiser, Richard S. Taylor, and Willard H. Taylor.
I noticed this....
"While the account of creation in the bible is not mythological, neither is it intended to be cosmological or scientific. It is not designed to answer the question "Where did the world come from?'" pg. 56
"Wiley wrote: The best Hebrew Exegesis has never regarded the days of genesis as solar days but as day periods of indefinite duratin..." pg 58
"and to the Romans He writes that God put forward (proetheto) Christ 'as an expiation by his blood' 3:25;cf. 1 John 2:2." page 358
"Death in mankind's history thus stands as the symbol of the tragic alienation between God and man because of sin." pg. 389
"Other interpretative factors are part of the meaning of the cross, but in this case Christ experience of death paradoxically declares that through death we can be victorious. It has been said that "the death of Christ transforms our thinking about death," Indeed it transforms our understanding of our existence;" 389
"Paul and the author of Hebrews emphasized that Christ acted in obedience to God's demands and in doing so the benefits accrued to mankind. In the representative deed of the cross Christ's obedience provided the possibility of our obedience and salvation." pg. 389
"The second Adam by obedience regained for us what was lost by the first Adam. Our obedience to the obedient son is the hope of our salvation." pg. 391
"Expiation is not directed chiefly toward the offended party. Rather it is directed towards that which has caused the break down in relationship" pg. 396 "According to these interpreters hilastrerion is not an act of placating an angry wrathful deity but an act of covering sin or annulling it's guilt." pg 397
Now for those new to theology these quotes seem fine with just a little confusion. However the devil is in the details!
So the theologians deny the scientific accuracy of genesis 1 and assume the day is ok with old earth.
As I stated blood and death are a part of nature within evolution. So there is nothing special to it and it makes you wonder why sin requires death or why death has the ability to reconcile God and man's relationship.
Bible believing evangelical scholars across the spectrum have come to deny "expiation" as the proper translation in Romans 3:25 and 1 John 2:2
Rom. 3:25 whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;"
1 John 2:2 and he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
Propitiation appeases the wrath of God. Does God have wrath?
Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; "
Ephesians 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; 2 wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: 3 among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others."
Revelation 6:16 and said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: 17 for the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?"
So then death is not a part of nature. Death is the penalty of sin and a sign of God's wrath!
Which is that which exalts the power of his grace!
Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13 (for until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. 15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
BTW, In Jesus obedience we have our imputed righteousness. We are not righteous on our own merits, we are righteous on Christ alone. And it is in that imputed righteousness that we can live for Christ without dead religion but in the spirit.
Romans 4: 6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, 7 saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. 8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
Romans 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22 even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23 for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Phil. 3:8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, 9 and be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: 10 that I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; 11 if by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. 12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. 13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, 14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.
Galatians 2:15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. 17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. 18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. 19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. 20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. 21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
So we are saved by grace and not by law. The blood is where we get our grace and it has to propitiate the wrath of God, because we are sinners and our obedience is "dung" only his blood counts. But if blood does not count salvation does not work.

In his review of Dennis Sewell's book The Political Gene, creation scientist and author Dr. Jerry Bergman mentions one of the most deplorable events in evolutionary history – the story of Ota Benga. A pygmy from the Congo, Benga attracted a great deal of attention when he was put on display at the Bronx Zoo. He eventually ended his life by firing a bullet into his heart in 1916.
Promotional photo of Ota Benga on display at the Bronx Zoo in 1906. Ten years later he committed suicide at the age of 32.Ota Benga and an orangutan of similar height were placed inside a locked cage. Quite naturally, the display had people asking if Ota Benga was a monkey or a man. The zookeeper answered that he was a transitional form between man and monkey – the missing link. Sewell's book points out that evolutionists defended the display by noting that evolution is taught in the school textbooks and is, quote, "no more debatable than the multiplication table."
African American clergymen complained to zoo officials about the exhibit, saying, "The Darwinian theory is absolutely opposed to Christianity, and a public demonstration in its favor should not be permitted." But the New York Times disagreed, saying: "We do not quite understand all the emotion which others are expressing in the matter. It is absurd to … moan over the imagined humiliation and degradation Benga is suffering. The pygmies ... are very low in the human scale…"
The tragic story of Ota Benga clearly reveals the stark contrast between those who follow Christ and those who follow Darwin. Whose side are you on?  immaterial mind

rom CMI
Did Noah need oxygen above the mountains?
Ceinturion, wikimedia commons
The replica ark that Dutchman Johan Huibers built.
by Don Batten
Question: If mountain climbers need oxygen tanks to climb Mount Everest, how were Noah, his family, and the animals able to breathe on the Ark when they were above the mountains (‘ ... and the mountains were covered.’, Genesis 7:20)?
Answer: This question presupposes that Mount Everest was the height it is now (8,848 m = 29,028 ft), and that the air pressure would not have changed at that height above normal sea level with the addition of the flood water.
Mount Everest was not the height it is now during the Flood. Earth’s highest mountains have fossils of sea creatures at their tops, showing they were once under the sea. The possibilities are that the sea rose to cover the mountains, or the mountains were once under the sea and have since risen out of the sea, or a combination of the two.
Many creationist scientists think that mountains such as the Himalayas were probably built by catastrophic movement of the earth’s continental plates during and after the Flood (see Q&A: Plate Tectonics). Measurements indicate that the Himalayas are still rising. The rate of rise now measured is just the remnant of the processes that occurred much faster in the past.
Some mountains could have existed before the Flood, but none like the current Himalayas, Alps, or Andes in height.
Mountain building occurred as a part of the geologic processes that deepened the oceans to take the waters off the land towards the end of the Flood. Some mountains could have existed before the Flood, but none like the current Himalayas, Alps, or Andes in height. In any case, there is only enough water on all the earth to cover mountains about 3 km (2 miles) high, if all the ocean basins were raised. So, if the waters were not 9 km deep, but much less, the question is no longer an issue.
Even if the flood waters were 9 km deep, would Noah and company have had trouble breathing?
Absolutely not. Air pressure is caused by the weight of air above the point where the pressure is being experienced. If the water was 9 kilometres deep, then the air that was in that 9 kilometres deep volume of what was atmosphere would have been pushed out and would then have sat above the water at 9 kilometers above the earth’s former surface.
However, if we assume the worst case scenario of the radius of the earth increasing by 9 km due to the water, the surface area of the earth plus water would have been greater than the earth so that the weight of air would have been spread over a bigger area so that the pressure would have been less.
How much would the air pressure have been reduced? Less than 0.3%. This is equivalent to standing on top of a 30-m (100-ft) high building at sea level! There would also have been a negligible effect on the pressure due to changes in the force of gravity (which affects the weight of the air).
It is certain, therefore, that those on the Ark would have had no trouble breathing—without oxygen tanks.
mark armitage wins lawsuit  milky way moving

Biologos claims:
• “Our worldview is based on a belief that the Bible is true – cover to cover, from Gen. 1:1 to Rev. 22:21.” -…/a-geological-response-to-the-movie-is…
Similarly, Mary Baker Eddy and a long series of cult leaders have also claimed this. However, they had claimed that Scripture couldn’t be understood as it appeared. Why not? Because Scripture is allegorical! Instead, only they had the key to understand the Scriptures. Thus, these leaders effectively built a wall between the Scriptures and the faithful.
Biologos has done the same thing. They too have built an insurmountable wall between Scripture and the Christian by claiming Genesis 1-11 to be allegorical and non-historical. Why have they done this? Because if Genesis is not historical, then they have succeeded in making room for evolution in a Bible that can no longer contradict its claims.
However, to remove the historical context is also to remove any clarity about interpretation. Perhaps even worse, denying the historicity of Genesis contradicts the rest of the Bible.
There are many evidences that the Bible regards Genesis as historical. The various genealogies extending back to Adam attest to its historicity. Even the words of Jesus:
• Matthew 19:4-6 (ESV) He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has [historically] joined together, let not man separate.”
Augustine warned about the possible effect of the pronunciations of the pundits of science of his day upon the faithful:
• Some of the weaker brothers and sisters, however, are in danger of going astray more seriously when they hear these godless people holding forth expertly and fluently on the “music of the spheres,” or on any questions you care to mention about the elements of this cosmos. They wilt and lose heart . . . and can scarcely bring themselves to touch the volumes [Scripture] they should be devouring with delight . . . [because] they have no time to be still (Psalm 46:11), and to see how sweet the Lord is (Psalm 34:8). And that is why they are too lazy to use the authority they have received from the Lord . . . . (Augustine 2002b, I.20.24).
Daniel Mann
Is the Bible historical or is it spiritual allegory? Of course, parts of the Bible are history, while other parts are not. So then, how can we determine the historical from the non-historical? Well, if we take the Bible seriously, we try to determine how the Bible regards it various writings. We compare Scripture with Scripture.
Let’s start with the Book of Jonah. Is it historical? Did a fish actually swallow Jonah and vomit him up on a beach after three days? One way to answer this question is to see how Jesus answered it. Evidently, Jesus regarded Jonah as history:
• He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here.” (Matthew 12:39-41; Mat 16:4; Luke 11:29-30)
Perhaps Jesus was referring to Jonah as an allegory? This doesn’t seem possible. If Jesus believed that Jonah had not actually been three days in a fish, then, to maintain the parallel, He didn’t believe that He too would actually be three days “in the heart of the earth.”
Besides, Jesus doesn’t say, “According to the tale, Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish.” Instead, He speaks as if this actually happened.
Jesus also warned Israel that “Nineveh will stand up at the judgment” of them. However, if all knew that Jonah was simply parabolic or allegorical, they would have scorned Jesus: “As it is fiction that Nineveh repented, so too is it fiction that Nineveh ‘will stand in judgment.’”
However, there was no such retort, as appropriate as this retort would have been had Jonah been regarded as a mere allegory or parable. Therefore, it seems that even the scholars at Jesus’ time had also regarded Jonah as history.
Jesus regarded the Book of Jonah as history. If we are followers of Jesus, then we are constrained to also be followers of His thinking and reasoning. He regarded Scripture as the undefiled Word of God (Matthew 5:16-18) and submitted to it in all regards. Quoting Deuteronomy 8, He responded to Satan:
• “Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4)
This means that we too must live by “every word” and to understand them as Jesus did. If He regarded the first several chapters of Genesis as history – and we find that the Apostles also regarded these chapters as history – then we too are constrained to regard them as history.
How did Jesus regard the Creation Account? As historical? Evidently! He based His teaching on marriage and divorce on the historicity of Genesis 1 and 2:
• "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female' [Gen. 1:26-27] and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' [Gen. 2:24]? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." (Matthew 19:4-6)
Jesus’ entire argument is based upon the history of God’s work:
• He created them,
• He made them one flesh,
• And “joined [them] together.”
If God had only figuratively (not historically) created and joined them, then we would have every right to actually divorce as long as we don’t figuratively divorce. Therefore, one who is contemplating divorce could reason that, “I’ll divorce my wife, but I’ll remain married to her figuratively, in my heart.” Of course, this is absurd, but this is because a non-historical understanding of Jesus’ words is also absurd. Instead, Jesus’ clear intent was to demonstrate that divorce is wrong and that the Pharisees were wrong for justifying divorce.
Jesus built His case on the common understanding that Genesis is history. If Genesis hadn’t been widely regarded as history, the Pharisees could easily have retorted, “Well, God didn’t actually join them together, so we are not prohibited from actually divorcing our wives!” in which case, Jesus’ argument would have completely collapsed.
This is not to deny that Genesis 1 and 2 are difficult to interpret. However, if we start with the conclusion that these chapters are not history – and also that the New Testament’s interpretation of them shouldn’t guide our interpretation (Scripture interpreting Scripture) - then we consequently reject our most important interpretive guidelines and constraints. Operating with this interpretive “freedom,” the door is opened to just about any interpretation we’d like to paste on Genesis.
Did Paul regard these chapters as teaching history (even if they use poetry and theology)? Certainly, he understood that Adam was actually and historically created first (1 Cor. 11:8-9), that it was the woman who had been deceived (1 Timothy 2:13-14, referring to Genesis 3 as history), and that Jesus was the Second Adam (1 Cor. 15:22). Had Adam been a myth, then this would suggest that Jesus also had been a myth.
Is it important to know that Genesis teaches history? Of course, not only is this question critical to interpretation, it is also critical to theology. Why? History and theology are inseparable. If we take away history, we also take away the theology based upon it. If Jesus hadn’t historically died on the Cross, we could have no theology of the Cross and of redemption. If Adam and Eve hadn’t actually rebelled against God causing the Fall, then God’s evolutionary program of creation would have been the problem and not our rebellion, undermining the theology of the entire Bible.
Theistic evolutionists argue that it is only because they have been able to “reconcile” evolution with the Bible that many educated “Christians” have remained in the Church. However, this suggests that God prefers a watered-down faith to no faith at all. However, this faulty answer reminds us of His Letter to the Church at Laodicea:
• “‘I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth. For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked.” (Revelation 3:15-17)
Is the Book of Job purely allegorical/figurative or is it also historical? Again, to answer this question, we need to see how the Bible itself answers this question. Once again, the Bible regards the Book of Job as history:
• “Even if these three men--Noah, Daniel and Job--were in it, they could save only themselves by their righteousness,” declares the Sovereign LORD…”as surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, even if these three men were in it, they could not save their own sons or daughters. They alone would be saved, but the land would be desolate.” (Ezekiel 14:14-16)
God regarded Job as an actual, historical person, just as much as Daniel and Noah. James also regarded him as historical:
• As you know, we consider blessed those who have persevered. You have heard of Job's perseverance and have seen what the Lord finally brought about. The Lord is full of compassion and mercy. (James 5:11)
James understood that God’s mercy to Job was a clear demonstration of the fact that “The Lord is full of compassion and mercy.” If the Book of Job had not been a matter of history, then this allegory would not have provided evidence of the mercy of God. Allegories do not provide evidence but illustration.
Many deny the historicity of a worldwide flood that had destroyed all mankind apart from Noah and his family. However, this account and the subsequent commentary bear all the signs of actual history:
• The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all mankind. Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark. (Genesis 7:20-23)
How does the rest of the Bible regard the historicity of this account? We have already seen that Ezekiel regarded Noah as a real person. Jesus also regarded the account of the worldwide flood as history:
• “For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.” (Matthew 24:37-39; Luke 17:27)
If Noah was a mere allegory, then Jesus’ return was also nothing more than allegory. The Book of Hebrews also regards Noah and the flood as history:
• By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith. (Hebrews 11:7)
Hebrews upholds Noah as an exemplar of the faith. Had this account been just a myth, “Noah” could not be upheld along with Abraham, Isaac, and Moses.
Peter invokes Noah and the flood as history and theology to prove that we must take seriously God’s promise of a future judgment:
• For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly…then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment. (2 Peter 2:4-9)
Had these not been actual and historical events but rather myths, Peter’s reasoning would have fallen apart. If these events were merely empty myths about a judging God, then the future judgment should also be regarded as a myth. However, Peter clearly believed that these events really took place. He therefore concluded: “then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment.” Peter couldn’t have possibly drawn such a conclusion from myths.
An historical worldwide flood teaches important theological truths:
1. God judges.
2. God rescues those who are His.
3. We must become reconciled to Him and not to the philosophies of this day that offer their own variety of hope.
However, such theology is distasteful. Instead, many of today’s “Christians” assuage their conscience with the belief that these are just myths and that a loving God would never do such things to His creation. However, we need only open our eyes to human history to observe that our omnipotent God allows all manner of horrors to occur.
Let us therefore humble ourselves before the God of the Bible and walk in His light.  radio carbon young earth

“Magicdirtism” is a much superior and more descriptive term for what most people call “evolution.” It is the idea that dirt did magic all by itself and turned itself into people without the Creator God of the Bible. Evolutionists use the term “evolution” to confuse the issue of what they really think, and not allow people to comprehend how stupid the idea really appears, if you think about it critically.
“Magicdirtism” is a better term for the idea that dirt somehow did magic and turned itself into people without a magician to do the magic. This avoids the confusion that magicdirters create by using the term “evolution,” which can be only change in species, and does not include abiogenesis."  Ed garret  armitage

"Global warming is very much a creation-related issue. Mineral evidence shows CO2 in the atmosphere before the Flood was about 15X greater than today. Fossil plants show the avg global temp was about 10 warmer than today, all of that warmth being at high latitudes and in the ocean. I.e., the tropics weren’t hotter than today. The fossils also show that the whole Earth was wetter and greener than today. In other words, global warming happened in the pre-flood world, and it was a *good* thing. So why should we fear it today? For details, see the ravings of a creationist who thinks global warming is probably happening today … again." - Russ Humphreys




**  dino skin

**  ** flash cosmology

**The Hitler - Darwin - Evolution Parallel**
You'll have to click on the picture to see the whole thing. But it's well worth the read
Side note: Out of the nearly 25 years I have been doing this, I have never see anyone make this comparison. And I am surprised I did not see this before. I was debating the other day using this evidence and it just clicked and I was like Dang. And you wonder why a lot of this stuff was blamed on Christians? This was to throw us off of seeing the actual truth. ~ Issac Bourne jobe martin

hartnetts blog

No comments: