|Posted on June 23, 2011 at 11:50 PM|
The problem with being faced with the warning signs that something is fundamentally wrong with a belief – any belief – is that we tend to not want to know. If we’re passionate, or just comfortable, with a belief, we probably don’t want to change. So, we tend to overlook the warning signs, or dismiss them if someone points them out to us. So, it is vitally important to understand that we aren’t just dealing with a meaningless, purposeless human race that is stuck with not really being able to know the truth about anything. We’re not dealing with flesh and blood. We’re dealing with demons. Ephesians 6:12 As we proceed through the various topics that we’ll cover, many will be faced with irresolvable problems in cherished beliefs. With some topics in life, it might not be very important, but the topics that we’ll cover couldn’t be more important. I want to urge everyone to unite on the level playing field of the statement that I’ve made several times: we have a common enemy, and it isn’t each other. When we’re dealing with the doctrines of demons, we dare not ignore the warning signs, and the purpose of this series is to provide a place for us all to pull together and expose the works of the enemy, not do battle against each other. The ugly reality is that we all have to be prepared to think the unthinkable when it comes to testing all things against the strategy of Satan.
The theory of evolution has changed our culture radically in the past 150 years. It has replaced the former foundation of our culture – The Bible - by replacing the foundation of the scriptures themselves. The true foundation is that:
Since evolution began replacing the foundation of our culture, we’ve been building a new culture on something backwards. As a result of doing that for 150 years, we now have a culture that is backwards. Men are marrying men and women are marrying women, we’re hugging trees and killing unborn babies, and by removing the Ten Commandments from our courts and schools our legislation declares that instead of man’s laws being subject to God’s laws, God’s laws are subject to man’s laws. (Big mistake! BIG MISTAKE! God will still judge us - and our laws - by His laws.) It isn’t necessary to know all about evolutionary biology in order to know that evolution can’t have happened and didn’t, and to be able to refute it. All that we need is the right facts, common sense, and the willingness to think for ourselves. As Bob Dylan put it on his Christian album, Slow Train Coming, “Don’t put my faith in nobody; not even a scientist.”
To find the weak spots in any false belief, we all need to look at what people (including ourselves) actually say and/or do. We say what we say because of what we believe, and if our words are confused, then something that we believe is at the root of it. The same applies to what we do. The relevance of that obvious fact will become increasingly clear in later topics, but the examples of our new backwards culture in the previous paragraph ought to set off some alarms in our minds, too.
The warning signs that Satan has counterfeited a particular truth may fall into dozens of subcategories, but, as I keep repeating (trust me – there is method to my madness), I’ve noticed that they all seem to fall into one of three main categories: critical factors that are left out, contradictions that can’t be resolved, and circular arguments.
Did you know that DNA is a language that stores masses of information? It has been calculated that, if a person’s DNA were printed on paper and bound in books, the books would fill the Grand Canyon 78 times. Evolution theory teaches that, given enough time, the mindless, brainless atoms could accidentally arrange themselves into all of that information, guided of course by mindless, brainless, impersonal natural processes. Realistically, the chance of that happening is so close to zero that it doesn’t even count, but since it “could happen”, identifying the real problem with accidental information requires digging a bit deeper. To do that, we just need to ask sensible questions. For instance, “What exactly is a language, anyway?”
And that’s where the cracks start to show. For instance, if by a complete fluke, chance random processes arranged the letters C, A, and T in a row, you’d have a word: CAT. But it’s only a word if it’s a part of a language in the first place, because some intelligent being wanted to be able to identify that particular creature with a sound. Intelligent information has to exist first in order for a language to be needed and developed. For the sake of discussion, if people named the animal “CAT” without a language to record the sound in, then the intelligence used to make up that name in the first place could also be used to create a way of writing it down and retrieving it later on. An alphabet would be created and the three needed letters with particular sounds would intentionally be lined up in the right order to create the combined sound that identifies that animal. If the curved, straight, and angled lines that comprise each of those separate letters happened in nature by chance before someone had created the English language, would anybody care? They’d just be lines. They wouldn’t have sounds associated with them as separate characters, let alone a meaningful sound when they were lined up by accident in the correct order. Obviously we can discover a new species of animal, or make a new invention, and use our existing language to come up with a name. However, that isn’t the point. This summary sentence is a mouthful just for the word “CAT”, but we can also apply it to the fact that DNA is a language:
Intelligent information has to already exist for a language to be needed at all, and the language is created to store the information so that it can be retrieved whenever it is needed.
The critical factor that is left out is that a language is created to store intelligent information that already exists. Information isn’t stored while creating a language. That’s how it would have had to have happened if the language had evolved by accident. But that’s backwards. And as I’ve said, if you start with something backwards, you’ll end with something backwards. The evidence of life’s origin - in order for life on Earth to exist at all - points to an Intelligence having instructions that needed to be stored permanently and then extracted when needed. So, that intelligence created a language perfectly suited to the purpose and wrote the information in that language in the nucleus of every living cell.
Did you know that the scientific process known as carbon dating – used to date fossils and rocks - doesn’t give dates of millions of years? That particular dating method only gives dates of thousands of years. There are four dating methods, and the other three give dates of millions of years.
Basically, what happens is this. There is a substance called carbon 14. It’s an unstable substance, and is in our atmosphere. Plants absorb it, and animals eat the plants, or eat other animals that eat the plants. We humans eat both, too. Carbon 14 decays over time and becomes regular carbon (carbon 12). That process takes thousands of years, and is believed to be measurable (given a bunch of assumptions). So, when a living thing dies, the unstable carbon stops being replaced. Whatever is there will eventually decay until it is all carbon 12. The decay of carbon 14 can be measured and the time of death determined (thousands of years ago).
In one of the other dating methods, potassium decays into argon. That takes millions of years. Well, the bottom line is, carbon dating doesn’t work. None of the dating methods do. Dr. Andrew Snelling, a Geologist and lecturer for Answers in Genesis, broke a rock containing a fossil into four pieces and sent one piece to each of the four best labs in America. Each lab specialized in one of the four dating methods. Dr. Snelling simply asked the people at each lab to please tell him how old the sample was. The four results of this blind test were different by millions of years. If the methods worked, the results would have been the same.
However, that irresolvable contradiction isn’t the most important fact to be extracted from the test results. Carbon 14 is found in animals and plants that died thousands of years ago, and does take thousands of years to decay. But the sample was taken from a layer of the Earth believed to have been laid down millions of years ago. The contradiction that can’t be resolved and therefore becomes a critical factor that changes everything (and has to be left out because there’s no way to explain it) is this: the presence of carbon 14 proves that the layer wasn’t laid down millions of years ago, but was actually laid down thousands of years ago.
Given the fact that the dating methods don’t work, how do we age such things? Well, we know how old the layers are by which fossils we find in them.
Don’t believe me? Fair enough. Here is a quote from a science publication:
"....fossils have been and still are the best and most accurate method of dating and correlating the rocks in which they occur .... I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils.", New Scientist, Nov.10, p.425, 1982
Notice something in the quote. The fossils date the rock layers, but radioactive decay isn’t used to date the fossils. So, common sense should then cause us to logically ask, “How do we know how old the fossils are?” That’s very simple. We know how old the fossils are by the rock layers that we find them in. That’s right. We age the rock layers by the fossils, but we age the fossils by the rock layers. That is a circular argument. In other words, using that method, we don’t know how old anything is!
Don’t believe me? Fair enough. Here are some more quotes from science publications.
"It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by a study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the organisms that they contain." Encyclopedia Britannia, Vol.X, p.168
"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning, if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales.", American Journal of Science, Vol. 276, p.51
Did he say, "The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately.”? How dumb is that! That’s how clever the Adversary is. He can get highly educated, very intelligent people to publish such statements. This is what some of our finest minds are educating us with.
Satan is a real entity. As I keep saying, we have a common enemy and it isn’t each other. The Bible tells us that we are transformed into Christ likeness by the renewing of our minds. Romans 12:2 Obviously, we can count on Satan – the great counterfeiter - to try to claim us in the same way. Scripture also says that God is not the author of confusion. With that said, guess who is! (C’mon Church Lady.) The issue of origins is one of the most important subjects for us to understand, and on that subject we are being fed a steady diet of confusion from the science establishment. There are long lists of problems with Darwin’s theory. I’ve only mentioned a few of them. He was aware of many of them 150 years ago, and because of those problems, for 20 years he refused to publish his theory. And over time the list of problems has grown to the point that, if Darwin were true to his word and alive today, he would agree that his theory had failed. I highly recommend spending time online getting a free education on the topic. Wonderful ministries such as Answers in Genesis and Creation Science Evangelism are great resources.
Answers in Genesis: http://www.answersingenesis.org/
Creation Science Evangelism: http://www.drdino.com/
See. No need for a PHD. All that we needed were the right facts, common sense, and the willingness to think for ourselves. But now that we’ve clearly seen many very serious warning signs that something has to be wrong with the belief, we need to dig deeper and figure out what it is about evolution theory which dazzles us so much that we don’t think critically about Darwinism, but end up trying to defend it. Beyond that is the reversed foundation. Stay tuned.