"The mighty duck"billed platypus

 



Is the duckbilled platypus unbiblical?
Genesis 1:
²⁴ And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
²⁵ And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
  Here we should notice that classes are not very intense.  There is cattle, creeping thing and beast of the earth.  Creeping things are usually what we think of as insects and crustaceans and molusk.  The beast of the earth appears the most likely match for the platypus.

1corinthians 15:³⁹ All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
  Here we see that God made a distinction of flesh between birds, fish and beast. The platypus may have a beak.  But it is not bird in any respect.  It does not have feathers,  nor wings.  There are non-birds with beaks(duck billed dinosaur, squid etc.) and mamals carry solid materials on their persons commonly such as antlers.
  Links between reptiles and mammals based on this text are not necessarily a break within the created order, based upon revelation.  So if God created a species with features that were mammalian as well as reptilian that would not contradict His Word.

  This leads us to the question.  How do we know that the modern era has an objective point of reference when considering the classifications of species and especially of evolution?  Knowing that the fossil record is found lacking in terms of finding transitional fossils.  How do we know that we can trace any lineage from one species to the next?  We could say the transition takes place over millions of years.  But we don't have the observation.  We could just as easily go back to lamarkism and say that these species can alter their own kind within a generation.  Afterall, what is the observational proof?
   You may retort, that animals changing their species is unlikely.  But random chance added to time doesn't make evolution much more likely.  Because the second law of thermo-dynamics translates into the chemical process of pasteurization, so the long age gaps allow for more biological decomposition making the probability extremely low.
"The French expert on probability, Emile Borel, developed the “single law of chance” (Ankerberg & Weldon, 1998: 183). Any process or entity having a probability of existence lower than 1 chance in 10⁵⁰ is said to never occur. This denominator is incredibly large, but for the benefit of evolutionary theory, it will be used as an example to logically falsify the possibility of any evolutionary process. David J. Rodabaugh, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Mathematics at the University of Missouri, explained that “the probability that a simple living organism could be produced by mutations ‘is so small as to constitute a scientific impossibility’—the chance that it could have happened ‘anywhere in the universe…is less than 1 [chance] in 10^2,999,942’” (Ankerberg & Weldon, 1998: 182). This probability is 10^2,999,892 smaller than the “single law of chance” and therefore, must be treated as strictly impossible. For a slight comprehension as to the magnitude of this small possibility, Ankerberg and Weldon write, “A picosecond is one-trillionth of a second. In 15 billion years, there are 10³⁰ picoseconds” (Ankerberg & Weldon, 1998: 185). The age of the earth proposed by evolutionary theory is only 5 billion years. Surely, an evolutionary event with a probability less than 1 in 10⁵⁰ is proof enough of the irrationality of evolutionary theory." http://chiefcornerstone.info/2011/11/evolution-chances/
Author: disciple Posted on November 5, 2011
     So evolution is already unlikely.  At which point if you have to believe in evolution as a fact.(public schools are now demanding it right?)  Then why not have evolutionary leaps like out of Marvel comics X-men?
  At which point if the evolutionary leaps take place we can never trace just which species mutated into what other species.  And thus evolution proves itself to be untraceable.


Is the duckbilled platypus a missing link?
  A. link to what?
 "It was originally thought that the first platypus specimens that were sent to England, were nothing more than an elaborate hoax. This was a fairly logical reaction to an animal that would seem impossible because it had a muzzle like a duck's bill, a tail like a beaver and which laid eggs but suckled its young. All of these attributes seemed contradictory to the knowledge scientists had in those days. But since then a lot of investigation has been done in order to find out more about this 'hoax' of a creature." The complete platypus  www.platypus.org.uk  


 Evolutionist have made this creature their champion of intermediate species, yet if the platypus is indeed the missing link... what is he linked to?
   It would seem impossible to claim that the platypus is a duck, after all their is a big difference between fur and feathers, not to mention wings.
If it is a link to reptiles then how did it become warm blooded? How did the scales become fur?
  Where is the platypus which is half feathered or scaled?
  B. Where are it's vestigial organs?
All the parts of platypus are useful and intelligently designed.  It's tail is used for storage of food.  it is adapted for digging and swimming simultaneously.  It has an electronic radar type of sense.  It can even scuttle decently.  The platypus is an amazing creature which brings glory to God.

C. If so old, how did it survive?
"The platypus and other monotremes were very poorly understood, and some of the 19th century myths that grew up around them—for example, that the monotremes were "inferior" or quasireptilian—still endure.^[60] In 1947, William King Gregory theorised that placental mammals and marsupials may have diverged earlier, and a subsequent branching divided the monotremes and marsupials, but later research and fossil discoveries have suggested this is incorrect.^[60][61"
Wikipedia "platypus"
   The platypus makes a great fossil, yet it is a puzzling living fossil.  How has it been fit to survive so many millions of years?  How could it breed any other species if it had no reason to evolve?


 D.  If so old why hasn't it multiplied across the world?
  Darwin was always concerned about overpopulation.  It has bled through with various political movements.  Such as the ecology movement.  But if the duckbill platypus is so ancient.  how come it has not populated all over the earth?  It has had millions of years to do so.


Are we approaching biology with the wrong perspective?
The tendency in biology is much like all academic efforts of the modern era.  We have a tendency to search for uniformity.  We want all things to be the same. However the platypus is quite original.  This originality was in direct contradiction to evolutionary science.
   God could create any animal he wants to.
But evolution has to have a natural explanation for everything. otherwise naturalism is false making evolution false.
The undoing of the evolutionary theory upon the platypus is much like the evolutionary theory upon society.  many secularist assumed that individual liberty as the key proof of an evolutionary worldview have only come to realize that all freedom is lost in the process, and anti-thetical to the truth.

 So how did the platypus come to be secluded in Australia?
( Now at this point we will make speculations, our only goal is to provide a rational alternative to the evolutionary interpretation.)

^{Genesis 3:17} And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
¹⁸ Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
¹⁹ In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
Genesis 6: ¹² And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
Genesis 9: ³ Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
Romans 8:¹⁹ For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
²⁰ For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
²¹ Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
²² For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
Isaiah 11^:5 And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins.
⁶ The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
⁷ And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
⁸ And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.
 

  Creationists admit to the idea of natural selection in biology.  While evolutionist will play word games with the phrase micro-evolution.  it is obvious that animals will alter to their environment. though they will not advance or change in their complete kind.
  That being said, the platypus has a carnivorous diet as well as having poisonous talons for the purpose of self defense.  This was a curse which the animal kingdom underwent as a result from the fall.  Prior to which all animals and man were vegetarian.  So the platypus would originally have not been made as carnivorous or poisonous.
  As natural selection set in, the mammalian animals which were marsupials and egg laying were not as fit for survival in the new cursed earth.
They were hunted more easily.  There instincts were more based upon the idea of escape than to fight.  As other carnivorous mammals dominated the main territories  God in His merciful providence allowed them a way to escape into the continent of Australia through what is now underwater, a land bridge.
 After an ice age melted, and the land bridge was covered and these species were protected.Thus God had mercy on His creation.  His eye was on the sparrow, and his grace was upon the mighty duck-billed platypus!

This is my letter to the editor of the courier Journal

School science hotly debated in KY

 

This articles quotations of me are misleading.

My speech may be found in it's full text on www.biblesmack.blogspot.com under Thursday, July 25, 2013

"July 23rd speech requesting that the Kentucky department of Education Reject Common CORE curriculum science standards"

  My argument was not about the psychological effects of evolutionary teaching. that was a side note, not specific to the science standards. I said "evolution as fact" is a lie; not evolution is a lie. (evolution is a theory) Primarily because it commits the logical fallacy of induction, since human history never observed even 1 million yearsIn the title the word "facist" is misleading.  I was refering to corporate entities controlling curriculum inserting religious ideas without accountability from the states and schoolboards.  I am about to debate these issues with anyone in a formal setting.

here is the article

FRANKFORT, KY. — Supporters and critics of Kentucky’s new science education standards clashed over evolution and climate change Tuesday amid a high-stakes debate on overhauling academic content in public schools.
Opponents ridiculed the new standards as “fascist” and “atheistic” and said they promoted thinking that leads to “genocide” and “murder.”
Supporters said the education changes are vital if Kentucky is to keep pace with other states and allow students to prepare for college and careers.
Nearly two dozen parents, teachers, scientists and advocacy groups commented at a state Department of Education hearing on the Next Generation Science Standards — a broad set of guidelines that will revamp content in grades K-12 and help meet requirements from a 2009 law that called for improving education.
“Students in the commonwealth both need and deserve 21st-century science education grounded in inquiry, rich in content and internationally benchmarked,” said Blaine Ferrell, a representative from the Kentucky Academy of Sciences, a science advocacy group that endorses the standards.
Dave Robinson, a biology professor at Bellarmine University, said neighboring states have been more successful in recruiting biotechnology companies, and Kentucky could get left behind in industrial development if students fail to learn the latest scientific concepts.
But the majority of comments during the two-hour hearing came from critics who questioned the validity of evolution and climate change and railed against the standards as a threat to religious liberty, at times drawing comparisons to Soviet-style communism.
One parent, Valerie O’Rear, said the standards promote an “atheistic world view” and a political agenda that pushes government control.
Matt Singleton, a Baptist minister in Louisville who runs an Internet talk-radio program, called teachings on evolution a lie that has led to drug abuse, suicide and other social afflictions.
“Outsiders are telling public school families that we must follow the rich man’s elitist religion of evolution, that we no longer have what the Kentucky Constitution says is the right to worship almighty God,” Singleton said. “Instead, this fascist method teaches that our children are the property of the state.”

notes for the august 8 KDE school board meeting

"Humanism is a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view as old as human civilization itself." preface to humanist manifestos I and II 1979 prometheus books

"Everson vrs. Board of Education, 330 U.S 1, 67 S.Ct. 504.  There we said: 'Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church.  Neither can pass laws which aid one religion over another.  Neither can force or influence a person to go to or remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or dis-beliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance.  No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion."
Supreme court justice Hugo Black
   This was a secular leaning supreme court quote.  The federal government can pass no laws to force belief in a religion. No person can be punished for entertaining religious beliefs or dis-beliefs.  tax money can not be raised to support.
  So If secular humanism is admitted by humanists (such as founding co-signer And public school innovator john Dewey) as a religious system.  Then it can not be imposed or favored over or against any pther belief system. (creationism)

Definition of fact in English

fact

Pronunciation: /fakt/

Translate fact | into French | into German | into Italian | into Spanish

noun

• a thing that is known or proved to be true:the most commonly known fact about hedgehogs is that they have fleas[mass noun]:a body of fact
•  (facts) information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article:even the most inventive journalism peters out without facts, and in this case there were no facts
•  (the fact that) used to refer to a particular situation under discussion:despite the fact that I’m so tired, sleep is elusive
•  [mass noun] chiefly Law the truth about events as opposed to interpretation:there was a question of fact as to whether they had received the letterhttp://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/fact

They say that evolution is a fact, but facts don't change while evolution does.

Darwinism taught that man descended from the orangutan. Other evolutionists said chimpanzees and yet still others say that we all came from a species that does not yet exist.
Now let's say that we had an incident on the sidewalk and you are a police officer investigating the scene. You asked the witness "what happened?"
He says "Yeah this old lady got ran over by a car!"
you ask "what color was the car?"
"The motorcycle was blue! It hit that little girl across the foot!"
What race was this woman?
"she was hawaiian! and she was mad at that van for bumping her elbow!"
"Wait are you describing the same story?"
"I don't see any other wrecks out here!"

Would you consider this witness testimony factual?
Evolution is not a fact that is a ridiculous statement. Unless you think that Darwin was not an evolutionist.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/06/090623-humans-chimps-related.html

Orangutans May Be Closest Human Relatives, Not Chimps

But looking at physical traits rather than genetic ones, orangutans are a better match, Grehan and Schwartz say.

Tell-tale features shared by both orangutans and humans include thickly enameled molar teeth with flat surfaces, greater asymmetries between the left and right side of the brain, an increased cartilage-to-bone ratio in the forearm, and similarly shaped shoulder blades.

"A hole in the roof of the mouth that was supposedly unique to humans is also present in orangs," Schwartz said.
"Humans and orangs have the widest-separated mammary glands, and they grow the longest hair," he added. "Humans and orangs actually have a hairline, in contrast to virtually all primates, where the hair comes down to the top of the eyes."
The team also highlighted orangutan-type traits in the teeth and jaw remains of ancient fossil apes from Africa and Europe.
Based on their analysis, the authors suggest "that humans and orangutans share a common ancestor that excludes [living] African apes."
But orangutans are native to Southeast Asia, which creates a problem: How did humans evolve in Africa if we are so closely related to the geographically distant orangutan? (Explore a human migration time line.)
The mainstream view is that humans evolved from the same group as African great apes: chimps, bonobos, and gorillas.
Instead, the authors speculate that a widely distributed orangutan-like ancestor of humans lived in Africa, Europe, and Asia some 13 million years ago.
Subsequent changes in climate and environment likely caused many populations to become extinct, leaving Asian and African species to evolve in isolation.
"Wacky Idea"
"There are actually very few [physical] features linking chimps and humans," noted the Natural History Museum's Andrews. "The case for that is based almost entirely on molecular evidence."
And those molecular studies are flawed, Schwartz and Grehan say, because of the high likelihood that the data includes broadly shared DNA traits.
"When you're doing a really rigorous analysis of relationships, you don't just stop at the potential demonstration of similarity," Schwartz said. "You have to distinguish between features that are widely shared [among many species] and those that are more uniquely shared."
In addition, Schwartz notes, the most cited studies are largely based on the so-called coding region of the genome, which makes up just 2 to 3 percent of an animal's DNA.
Scientists are referring to this tiny part of the genome when they say humans and chimps are so similar, he said.
But other studies that focus on non-coding regions also consistently support a human-chimp link, counters Carel van Schaik of the Anthropological Institute and Museum at the University of Zurich, Switzerland.
"A study that reaches a very different conclusion [from the genetic evidence] must explain why these molecular studies are wrong," van Schaik, who also serves as a consultant to the conservation group Borneo Orangutan Survival UK, said in an email.
"Of course, orangutans are very human-like in many respects, but so are chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas … ."
Anthropologist Nick Newton-Fisher, of the University of Kent in the U.K., described the human evolutionary path implied by the new study as a "wacky idea."
"Given the weight of evidence from the genetics," he said, he would be reluctant to accept the new findings."

So while the evolutionist may evolve their ideas.  They may not impose them on school children. At least not according to constitutional law.

extra notes I offered to the KY department of education

Greetings,
I am Matt Singleton. I wanted to provide some confirmation to the points made in my speech.



Inductive Fallacies)
  "Inductive reasoning consists of inferring from the properties of a sample to the properties of a population as a whole.
   For example, suppose we have a barrel containing of 1,000 beans. Some of the beans are black and some of the beans are white. Suppose now we take a sample of 100 beans from the barrel and that 50 of them are white and 50 of them are black. Then we could infer inductively that half the beans in the barrel (that is, 500 of them) are black and half are white.
    All inductive reasoning depends on the similarity of the sample and the population. The more similar the same is to the population as a whole, the more reliable will be the inductive inference. On the other hand, if the sample is relevantly dissimilar to the population, then the inductive inference will be unreliable.
No inductive inference is perfect. That means that any inductive inference can sometimes fail. Even though the premises are true, the conclusion might be false. Nonetheless, a good inductive inference gives us a reason to believe that the conclusion is probably true."
  Stephen's Guide to logical fallacies (Stephen Downes University of Alberta) www.onegoodmove.org

observation of history
"Civilization, as historians identify it,  first emerged between 5,000 and 6,000 years ago when people began to live in organized communities with distinct political, military economic and social structures.  Religious, intellectual, and artistic activities also assumed important functions in these early societies."
"Although Historians use documents to create their pictures of the past, such written records  do not exist for the prehistory of humankind.  Consequently, the story of early humanity depends on archaeological and more recently biological information, which anthropologists use t create theories about our early past. Although modern science has fostered the development of more precise methods, much of our understanding of early humans relies upon considerable conjecture."
 Comprehensive Volume WORLD HISTORY by William Duiker and Jackson J. Spielvogel 
     As far as Biblical history and the ancient texts the Bible...
"It is the most complete history of the ancient past that we possess" READING THE OLD TESTAMENT: An Introduction by Lawrence Boadt.
  It should be noted that the textbook quoted is by a Roman Catholic author who holds to form criticism.  Even in his theologically liberal approach he observes the Historical authority of the Judeo christian history.

The lack of authority of Geological Uniformitarianism 

"Whatever the method or approach, the geologist must take cognizance of the following facts... There is no place on earth where a complete record of the rocks is present....  To reconstruct the history of the earth, scattered bits of information from thousands of locations all over the world must be placed together.  The results will be at best only a very incomplete record.  If the complete history of the earth is compared to an encyclopedia of 30 volumes, then we can seldom hope to find even one comeplete volume in a given area. Sometimes only a few chapters, perhaps only a paragraph or two, will be the total geological contribution of a region; indeed, we are often reduced to studying scattering bits of information more nearly comparable to a few words of letters."  Brown Monnet and Stovel  Introduction to Geology


Remember this is not about including creationism as much as it is about the schools not teaching religion. Which is what evolution"as fact" is.  I am not protesting theories being taught.  Yet it is the darwinist that have suppressed scientific evidence from the academic community.
For instance, here is the story of a scientist who came forward and presented Peer reviewed evidenace for an instaneous creation with polonium halos.

Year 2000 Challenge
			to the National Academy of Sciences   Earth Science Associates P. O. Box 12067 Knoxville, TN 37912 March 22, 2000 Dr. Bruce Alberts, President National Academy of Sciences 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20418 Dear Dr. Alberts: On page ix of the 2nd edition, Science and Creationism, A View from the National Academy of Sciences, you state: "Scientists have considered the hypotheses proposed by creation science and have rejected them because of a lack of evidence." On page 7 of the 1st edition, we find: "The hypothesis of special creation has, over nearly two centuries, been repeatedly and sympathetically considered and rejected on evidential grounds by qualified observers and experimentalists." I assume you and other prestigious Academy members are open to changing your views on this topic if you become aware of validated scientific evidence supporting the Genesis creation record. I am therefore inviting you, and as many of your Academy colleagues that you wish to bring or send, to my 7:00 pm. presentation, at Wichita State University on March 30. There I intend to review: (i) the scientific evidence for Earth's rapid creation, evidence which I published in Science, Nature, and Annual Reviews of Nuclear Science during my thirteen-year-long Guest Scientist position in the Chemistry Division at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, (ii) how the ACLU failed to refute this evidence during my testimony at the Arkansas creation trial in December 1981, (iii) how the highest echelons of America's scientific establishment have worked to suppress this evidence from further dissemination since that trial, (iv) the contradiction between, on one hand, the Academy's claims of having rejected the evidence for the Genesis creation on evidential grounds and, on the other hand, its deafening silence concerning my widely published and unrefuted scientific evidence for Earth's rapid creation, and (v) the fact that the Academy's silence about my results cannot be due to ignorance because some of the authors of both editions of the Academy's booklets were aware of my participation at the Arkansas creation trial. I am genuinely hoping that you and your colleagues will respond positively to my invitation and do all in your power to come and explain exactly why the Academy has rejected the published scientific evidence for the Genesis creation, which has now stood unrefuted in the open scientific literature for over twenty-five years. With all the power of the world's most eminent evolutionists to call upon, you certainly shouldn't have any difficulty finding any number who would be most happy to do this, if it can be done. This will he a most opportune time to present your case and then see if I have a valid scientific response to your objections. Be assured that the Academy's absence will speak volumes. In that case I intend to challenge the media to arrange for the Academy to meet me on a live, prime-time TV special to settle this issue publicly. If, as I believe the evidence shows, God left irrefutable scientific evidence, in accord with the Fourth Commandment, that He created the Earth ex nihilo in six literal days (Exodus 20: 8-11), then it is also time that America's taxpayers ask Congress to determine why the Academy continues to suppress free and open scientific inquiry, into what may be the greatest scientific question of our time. Cordially, Robert V. Gentry

Another logical irrationality about "evolution as fact".

   Evolution is not given proper definition and so while we can get multiple version of evolution as the truth.  Any form of intelligent design or creationism is automatically censored in a world of ideas.
 one geologist testified that evolutionists should not be blamed for communism because Darwinist were oppressed in the soviet Union.
However, this goes back to bait and switch tactics.
 "In His Origin of Species, Darwin accepted the principle of the inheretance of acquired characteristics as one of the factors contributing to evolution." Encyclopedia Britannica 1969 lamarkism
   Darwin's Darwinism was a different theory than today
While the west went along with this ideological shift. lamarkianism was far from dead.  Karl Marx was entertained by the Lamarkist perspective and as a result the Soviet Union Became a lamarkian establishment in their institutions.
"In the Soviet Union for example, where the inheritance of acquired characteristics is accepted and where it has an official standing, it is presented as a part of the Darwinian theory and is referred to generally as "creative Soviet Darwinism" as distinct from the "reactionary Darwinism" of capitalistic countries."Encyclopedia Britannica 1969 lamarkism
The Soviet Union was evolutionary to the core. They reacted strongly to American Darwinists. But then again soviet Darwinism wasn't allowed in the USA either.



I have since learned how the new science standards are not going to be adequate in the areas of physics, electronics and chemistry.  Richard Innes should be producing a report on His findings of the topic.
Thank you,
Sincerely
Rev. Matt Singleton

July 23rd speech requesting that the Kentucky department of Education Reject Common CORE curriculum science standards

To the Kentucky Department of Education,

As a citizen of Kentucky, I boldly ask you to reject the common core Science curriculum.
There are several reasons. But the reason that sticks out the most in my personal judgment, is the initiative to inculcate our children with the idea of evolution as fact.
Now I am well aware of the historic teaching in the public schools of evolution as theory. And I believe we have paid a high price in our society for indoctrinating this idea to our children. (plagues of drug abuse, suicide and dissolving family units come to mind)
Yet going further into this ideology will have further consequences upon our peoples.
The justification for rejecting this being taught proved simply in stating that “evolution as fact" is a lie.
A “fact” by nature is something observed. Where evolution by nature simply has not been observed. When your curriculum discusses the “history of the earth”. There was no human who observed the History of the earth.
All consistent Historical records in most all ancient civilizations does not exceed 5,000 years. Except the Bible whose records exceed 6,000 years.
History has no ancient Darwinian evolutionist. Among the ancient Greek Pre-Socratic philosophers, the materialists were decisively rejected.
Which leaves the pagan explanation of history along side the judo-christian history. The Pre-Socratic philosophers once again did society a service of dismissing the pagan cosmologies as simply irrational mythologies.
The Jews, however stood firm in their convictions of the Bible being the true history of the World. This is evidence by the works of Flavius Josephus. A Jewish historian paid by the roman government to give an accurate account, whom confirmed in His history the accuracy of the scriptures.
And so we have only observed the realm of history in terms of a few thousand years. Not even close to 1 million years. Let alone observing the existence of 4.6 Billion years or 15 billion years.

Once science advocates speculate beyond what they have directly observed, they commit the logical fallacy of induction.
You have no authority to claim knowledge of that which exceeds your observations. If I take a spoon of marbles out a gallon of marbles. I may notice 9 red marbles and 1 blue marble. Yet that doesn’t prove that 90% of the gallon container is the same percentage.
Once a physicist commits the inductive fallacy they have left hard science for meta-physics. Metaphysics is the wall upon which the house of religion is built. Religion delves into the realm of mystery. Even Charles Darwin labeled the idea of the origin of species as “that mystery of mysteries”
So why is their insistence that we place such an irrational framework on our children?
I take a step back into history and step into the shoes of the famous defender of creationism William Jennings Bryan.
Bryan was not ordinary lawyer, he defended AND WON this case(the scopes trial) for the same reason He became the democratic Nominee for the president of the United States of America. He was a defender of the impoverished. William Jennings Bryan Boldly railed against the robber barons Rockefeller, Carnegie and J.P.Morgan
History is repeating itself. Common core curriculum is controlled exclusively by big business groups such as Bill Gates. Outsiders are telling public school families that we must follow the rich man’s elitist religion of evolution. That we no longer have what the KY constitution says is the right “to worship almighty God”. Instead this fascist method teaches that our children are the property of the state. Because religion is now fact!
On the contrary my friends we are free and God; not big government has always given us liberty. We didn’t have to buy it online. The governments only job is to “secure the blessings” given to us by God and protect it’s supervisor and King!!
“We the People!”

Rap Song: They call me young earth!

Chorus: They call me young Earth!
I was made from the Dirt!
And all you Christian Knuckle Walkers is about to get hurt!

You took an existential trip and you mixed it in crap!
and now your so nihilistic, you've been taking a nap!

You I.D. suckas think your smart?
Ha!  You wish!
Cause Michael Behe was nothing but a rip-off of Duane Gish!!
You thought you had a big bang!!
Nope. Just a whimper.
"Please Go away! Don't make Sheldon loose his temper!"

revised chorus: They call me young earth!
I was made from the Dirt!
And all you Knuckle Walkers is about to get hurt!

These new Atheist brats
Think their smart as they foam with rabies
You say your free thinkers when your just muppet babies!
[Wacka! Wacka!]

revised chorus: They call me young earth!
I was made from the Dirt!
And all you Knuckle Walkers is about to get hurt!

When it comes to real geology Charles Lyell Won't love it
Evolution ain't the fittest if it's the truth  that you covet!
The fossils say "flood" with their bones in the mud

You straight outta berkely?
I am straight out da chapel!!
I could crush this debate, with all the right reasons, while you whimper and cry like a back slidden heathen!

The image of God is how we're born! Yet all we show these kids is an image of porn!
Whoops! \There's a baby!  Nope! its a fetus!
We can't raise all these kids! Oh no! We're elitists!
You say you believe only what you see! But you only see what they showed you on MTV!
Cause it was Adam and Eve! Not Adam and[radio edit]

They say they gave you think link in the bones of Lucy, but that chimp was a guy and not Gary busey!!

revised chorus: They call me young earth!
I was made from the Dirt!
And all you Knuckle Walkers is about to get hurt!
hurt!... hurt!...hurt.

Yeshua? Or jesus? Responding to the radical fringe of the messianic/Hebrew roots movement

Should we be Christian?
Acts 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
 The word "christian" was a word of derision.  It was a word of name calling and humiliation.  Yet the first christians put pride in that title regardless because they had no shame in Christ.
  In centuries past many would wear that title in vain and cause a great disservice to our Lord. Yet "christ" points us back to Jesus of Nazareth our savior. As the world has gone back to paganism, the word "christian" is growing unpopular again. Not only among communities among atheist and  Muslims.  But as well from those who claim to be God's chosen.  Many in the radical fringe within the Hebrew roots movement, have made the claim that we are to worship Yashua Hamashia and not Jesus Christ.  That we are to be messianic Jews and not christian.
  While I'll admit that there are huge groups of apostates that claim the name of Christ yet are apostate...  This does not Justify separation from all those who bear his name.
  This movement of rejecting the gentile languages as pagan, is a form of judaizing. It is a means of by passing the age of grace and accumulating religion by self righteousness.

Romans 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. ² For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

³ For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
⁴ For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
⁵ For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
⁶ But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:)
⁷ Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
⁸ But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
  This legalism was not limited to Jews who rejected Jesus, But in fact was an epidemic among Jewish followers of Christ.

Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

² This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
³ Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
⁴ Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.
⁵ He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
⁶ Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
⁷ Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
   So there is a definite concern with Christians in relation to the law for salvation.


Was the New Testament written in Hebrew or Greek?
A. North Israel
  As a Galilean, Jesus and many apostles had gentile neighboring cities.  This is important because the Jews would be more likely to know the Greek language in this area.
^{Matthew 4:12} Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee;
¹³ And leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast, in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim:
¹⁴ That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,
¹⁵ The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles;
  The universal Gentile language was Greek, at this time. Jesus and the apostles were likely to be completely conversant in this dialogue.

B. Dr. Luke)
Luke was a gentile, writing His gospel for Hellenistic readers, specifically His Greek publisher.
1:³ It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
 So it is obvious that Luke wrote in Greek.

C. Why only a couple Aramic quotes?
   If the gospels were originally punlished in aramaic Then why only quote aramaic a few times with no stastement that all of it was aramaic?

"The Gospels were originally written in Greek, the common lingua franca (common or commercial language among diverse peoples) of the Roman Orient. No original Gospels have been found in Aramaic; the only known Aramaic Gospels are translations from Greek versions. The general consensus is that the Gospel according to Matthew was written particularly for Jews; the Gospel according to Mark was written particularly for Romans; the Gospel according to Luke was written particularly for Greeks; and the Gospel according to John was written for everyone." conservapedia The gospels

D. How would a Jew(Peter), speak to the Romans?
  Aramaic and Hebrew simply were inadequate for Italians, yet it is doubtful peter would have mastered Latin.  The point of contact is obviously through the Greek language.

E.Why are Hebrew names given a Greek accent?
 They would use the greek accent of Isaiah (esaias) .  Because these jews spoke Greek and were more familiar with the Greek than in the Hebrew.

F.Was the Logos in the beginning?
The "logos" is a major concept with the greeks and platonist of this day and age.  It even has messianic overtones.  If this were Hebrew it would not make such a connection.

Why would God use a different language?
Isaiah 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

How do we know the original manuscripts were in Greek?
http://www.ntgreek.org/SeminaryPapers/Evidence%20from%20History%20and%20the%20Gospels%20that%20Jesus%20Spoke%20Greek.pdf

Why would God use Greek?
1 Corinthians 14:9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.
1Corinthians 14:19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

Acts 6:1 And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.
   It is obvious that the Jews outside Israel were Greek speaking. And the Episitles of Paul and others were indeed in Hebrew. Even the fact that Saul of Taursus is no longer Paul is an obvious sign of the transition to Greek.
St. Augustine observed that Romans preferred for Latin to be adopted per pacem societatis, through a social pact.^[43] This policy contrasts with that of Alexander the Great, who aimed to impose Greek throughout his empire as the official language.^[44] As a consequence of Alexander’s conquests, koine Greek had become the shared language around the eastern Mediterranean and into Asia Minor.^[45] The "linguistic frontier" dividing the Latin West and the Greek East passed through the Balkan peninsula, creating a bilateral monolingualism in the Roman Empire.^[46]

 

Romans who received an elite education studied Greek as a literary language, and most men of the governing classes could speak Greek.^[48] The Julio-Claudian emperors encouraged high standards of correct Latin (Latinitas), a linguistic movement identified in modern terms as Classical Latin, and favored Latin for conducting official business.^[49] Claudius tried to limit the use of Greek, and on occasion revoked the citizenship of those who lacked Latin, but even in the Senate he drew on his own bilingualism in communicating with Greek-speaking ambassadors.^[49] Suetonius quotes him as referring to "our two languages,"^[50] and the employment of two imperial secretaries, one for Greek and one Latin, dates to his reign.^{[51] Wikipedia Roman empire: languages}

Are Christians under the law?
Romans7:1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.



What if our language is pagan?

Psalm117 O praise the Lord, all ye nations: praise him, all ye people.

² For his merciful kindness is great toward us: and the truth of the Lord endureth for ever. Praise ye the Lord.
Mark 13¹⁰ And the gospel must first be published among all nations.
    All tongues and languages can praise God. Godis the God of us all.

^Acts2:5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
⁶ Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
⁷ And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
⁸ And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
⁹ Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
¹⁰ Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
¹¹ Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
¹² And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?
   Here the Gospel will be preached in every language miraculously.



Is Jesus lord of the Gentiles as well?
John 4:21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.


Mark 7²⁶ The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter.

²⁷ But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.
²⁸ And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs.
²⁹ And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter.

  Here we see Jesus in Dialogue with a Greek speaking woman. it would make no sense for Him to speak to her in another language than greek.

  Now Jesus, ministry was to the circumcised Jews.  But His gospel would be propagated all over the earth.
Romans 15:⁸ Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers: ⁹ and that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name. ¹⁰ And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people. ¹¹ And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people. ¹² And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust. ¹³ Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost.

is jesus, jesus?
phillippians 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
^Luke23:37 And saying, If thou be the king of the Jews, save thyself.
³⁸ And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, This Is The King Of The Jews.
³⁹ And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.
^{Matthew 27:37} And set up over his head his accusation written, This Is Jesus The King Of The Jews.
John 19
¹⁹ And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was Jesus Of Nazareth The King Of The Jews.
²⁰ This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.

The point here is obvious. jesus name was spoken in many languages and dialects in his life.  He was meant for His name to be spoken among all people Jesus is the savior of the World.

John 3:¹⁷ For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.