Laws Of Logic Show God Exists - The God Of The Bible

Where do the laws of logic come from? The law of non-contradiction, for example. Can there be two contradictory claims that are both true? How do you know this law of logic to be true? From your experience? But your experience is very limited... you have not been everywhere in the universe. You don't know everything. Possibly, at some other location in the universe it is possible for two opposites to be true and the law of contradiction does not apply.

The laws of logic only make sense in a Christian world-view, not in a universe in which everything came about because of random chance (evolution). The laws of logic are a reflection of the way God thinks. We know how He thinks because He has told us in the Bible. For example, the law of non-contradiction comes from God's self-consistent nature. And since God is constantly upholding the universe (Hebrews 1:3), a Christian knows that the law of non-contradiction applies throughout the universe... everywhere. A Biblical Christian has a basis for knowing the laws of logic are real and true. No one else can say that... and in fact any argument attempting to justify belief in the laws of logic will be based on Biblical principles.

A good book to read on this is "The Ultimate Proof Of Creation" by Dr. Jason Lisle

Origin Of Species Anniversary Today

This is it! The 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin's "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

For most of the month we have been posting quotes from scientists who are not believers in creation. Today is the last day. Evolution is the great myth of our time. A myth that retards science, but more importantly a myth that turns people away from their creator... away from God. That's the purpose of the myth of evolution. It's to provide an explanation of life without the need for God. But you can't make God go away by ignoring Him or making believe He does not exist.

Reality does not go away just because you declare you don't believe in it. What you believe makes no difference.

"Science positively demands creation." - Lord Kelvin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1988), page 94.

We've been looking at a lot of quotes about science, and how evolution does not even stand up as being scientific. But the answer ultimately is not in science. God has given us the answer. If we turn to God first, and pay attention to what God's word plainly says, we'll avoid the misdirections, false starts and blind alleys that myths like evolution lead science into.

"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality... That was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution today." - Michael Ruse, "Saving Darwin From The Darwinians," National Post (May 13, 2000)

Thank you for joining me in this "celebration" of the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin's "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

A Common Evolution Switch-A-Roo - #17

When talking to an evolutionists, watch out for the big switch-a-roo. They like to talk about "evolution" (or natural selection) on the micro-evolution scale. This is something that is true and which can be observed. For example, it is why we have many different types of dogs - from German Shepherds to poodles. Life does change. But the type of life never changes. We have many types of dogs, but they are still dogs. They have not changed into something else.

But then, while still using the term "evolution" the conversation switches to be about one type of life changing into another type of life. It is assumed that if dogs can change such that there are many types of dogs, then one type of life can change to become another type of life -- something that has never been observed.

"The facts of microevolution [change within the species] do not suffice for an understanding of macroevolution [theorized change from one species to another]." - Richard Goldschmidt, Material Basis of Evolution (1940).

Evolution Or Accountable To God - #11

Continuing with yesterday's theme of asking why, when there is no evidence to support it, do intelligent people cling to Darwinism? The reason is because they want to. Here are some quotes from the early days when Darwinism was first being introduced:

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption... The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do." - Aldous Huxley

That plainly states the reason for evolution. It allows us to do what we want to do.

On the other hand God tells use that he created us in his image. Since He created us He owns us. He has the right to tell us what to do. But it is also important to know we were not created in any haphazard way. We are created in God's image, and that means we are a form of a representative of God to all the universe. Since we represent God, and God has made it clear how we are to do this (the Ten Commandments for example), if we misrepresent God we can expect God will deliver justice. That means we are under God's wrath (God's punishment) for our breaking His laws.

Evolutionists don't want to face this fact. Evolution is a convenient excuse to avoid even having to think about this. But believing in a fantasy will not save anyone from reality. The reality is that we have broken God's laws and we face the just penalty for having done so.

Why Do Some People So Strongly Support Evolution? - #10

The following quote is from Charles Singer, from his book "A Short History Of Science In The Nineteenth Century:

"Evolution is perhaps unique among major scientific theories in that the appeal for its acceptance is not that there is evidence of it, but that any other proposed interpretation of the data is wholly incredible."

Those who hold to evolution and those who understand creation to be true both have the same evidence. We all have the same fossils, the same layers of sediment, the same data. Both sides believe in science as a tool for revealing reality. The difference comes in the underlying world views that each side has. A world view can cause people to totally ignore reality when reality does not match the way they think the world should be. Here is where we get to the problem. Evolutionists need evolution to be true, because otherwise the only other option is that God created everything. That is unacceptable, because if God created everything they are accountable to God. And they don't want to be accountable to God.

After 150 Years Evolution Is Facing A Crisis - #9

Because of both the lack of evidence supporting evolution, and the rapidly growing evidence supporting creation, Darwinian evolution is in a crisis. It has become a dogma that is mainly supported through suppression of dissenting voices. Here are some dissenting voices, scientists who are not creationists:

"The evolution of the animal and plant world is considered by all those entitled to judgment to be a fact for which no further proof is needed. But in spite of nearly a century of work and discussion there is still no unanimity in regard to the details of the means of evolution." - Richard Goldschmidt, "Evolution as Viewed by One Genetist," in American Scientist, Vol 409, January 1952, page 84.

"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end, no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin's pronouncements and predictions... Let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back." - L.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study In Probabilities (1985)

My source for these quotes is the Evolution Handbook. A 992 page paperback that is full of facts about evolution that most people are not aware of. See yesterday's post to get a copy of this book at a discount.

Nothing Can Turn Into Something - #8

"Nobody can imagine how nothing could turn into something. Nobody can get an inch nearer to it by explaining how something could turn into something else." -- G.K. Chesterton

"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely of imagination." - Dr. Fleishman, quoted from "F. Meldau, Why We Believe In Creation, Not Evolution, page 10.

This is the tenth day of quotes from non-Christian (non-creationist) scientists who are pointing out that evolution cannot be true. There are plenty more... many more than I'll be able to include here. Where am I finding all these quotes? From an excellent book called the Evolution Handbook. It is a 992 page paperback book that provides thousands of scientific facts disproving every basic area of evolutionary theory. The book as a cover price of $10.95. That's a bargain! But we made a bulk purchase and can make copies available for $7.00, including shipping within the U.S. Just send $7.00 to: Mission to America, P.O. Box 974, Tualatin, OR 97062. Be sure to include a note that says you'd like a copy of the Evolution Handbook.

150 Years of Darwinism and Evolution - #6

"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence... one can find qualified, professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other." -- J. Bonner, American Scientist 49, 1961, Page 240

Norman Macbeth writing in "Darwin Retried (1971) Page 77 said: "When the most learned evolutionists can give neither the how nor the why, the marvels seem to show that adaptation is inexplicable. This is a strange situation, only partly ascribable to the rather unscientific conviction that evidence will be found in the future. It is due to a psychological quirk."

---

It's The Year Of Darwin #5

We're celebrating the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin's "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." That anniversary is coming up on November 24th.

To celebrate we are publishing quotes from scientists who do not believe in creation. That's right, these are scientists who DO NOT BELIEVE IN CREATION. But as is true with many scientists, they are having trouble accepting evolution.

Today's quote is from Michael Denton, writing in his book: "Evolution, A Theory In Crisis" (1985) Page 327.

"The overriding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research--paleontological, zoological and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology--has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth."

"The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any support over the past century is where it applies to microevolutionary phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more 'aggressive advocates' would have us believe."

---

Continuing the Celebration Of Origin of Species #4

Louis Agassiz, a Harvard University Professor said, "The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake."

Pierre P. Grasse, in "The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977 - page 202) wrote:

"Present day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires fallacious interpretations."

"Through the use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case."

Continuing the Celebration Of Origin of Species #3

The first quote today comes from H. Lipson. It is from an article published in the Physics Bulletin 31, 1980, page 138. The article has the title: A Physicist Looks At Evolution"

"To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all."

The next quote is from P.P. Grasse, Evolution Of Living Organisms (1977) page 31:

"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."

Believers In Evolution Speak About Evolution #2

In celebration of the 150th anniversary of the publication of "Origin..." here are two more quotes from scientists who are not creationists:

"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible." - Ambrose Flemming, president of the British Association for Advancement of Science

"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolutionary theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries.. have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions." - the Director of a large graduate biology department.

---

Freedom In the U.S. Vs Freedom In China

Who has the greater freedom of speach? Someone living in China or someone living in the U.S.?

Obviously it is the person in the America, right? We have much greater freedom here... or do we?

There is a Chinese paleontologist who travels around the world giving lectures in which he states that recent fossil finds in China are not consistent with the Darwinian theory of evolution. He says this because he has observed that the major animal groups appear abruptly in the rocks over a relatively short time. Darwin's therory predicts that they should evolve gradually from a common ancestor. When this conclusion upsets American scientists, he wryly comments: "In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin."

I don't claim the Chinese, in general, have more freedom of speach than American's do, but it is ironic that in China a professor can speak openly about Darwin being wrong. That's not allowed in America. To do anything that questions evolution can result in lose of tenure or even the lose of your job.

What for a movie called "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed" that is coming out in April.

Creation vs Evolution Debate (Comments)

A person who calls himself TVL left a comment on a June 2006 post about Creation vs. Evolution Debate vidos. In my response I said that I would post photographs of ancient art that shows humans and dinosaurs together. All it would take is one piece of art, from 1000 years ago, showing a dinosaur and that would be proof that humans and dinosaurs lived together. But there is much more than just one, there are hundreds.

The art does not even have to show people and dinosaurs together, because:

1. Obviuosly there was a person there, because the person made the art.

2. If the art shows an accurate representation of a dinosaur (which it does), there is no other way for the artist to know what a dinosaur looked like unless he saw one, live and in-person. Ancient people did not dig bones out of the ground and try to assemble them into skeltons.

There is not just one or two paintings and carvings showing dinosaurs, there are thousands from many different cultures around they world. They show many different types of dinosaurs, and they show them correctly. That's something we have not always been able to do. For example, for many decades the brontosaurous was considered the largest dinosaur. But, scientists had the wrong head on this dinosaur. That mistake was recently corrected. However, ancient art unearthed nearly 100 years ago shows this dinosaur with the correct head.

What is shown in this post are two ica stones from Peru. The one above shows two people fighting with a dinosaur. The one in front of the dinosaur is attacking it with a spear. There is also a person behindthe dinosaur attacking it with an ax. This carving was made about 1000 years ago and buried as a part of a funeral.

Here is a second ica stone, also about 1000 years old, that clearly shows a different type of dinosaur.

In addition to ica stones, there is other art such as: a carving of a dinosaur in a Cambodian temple; Native America rock petrogliphs showing dinosaurs; tapistries showing dinosaurs; there is even a book from 16th century Europe, that catalogs all the animals existing at the time in Europe... and the catalog includes dinosaurs.

Dinosaurs are even mentioned about 40 times in the Bible.

To see ancient art showing dinosaurs visit: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dino-art.htm.
This web site does not show very good web design skills, but it does have very good pictures.

Secret Emails - Following The Evidence Where It Leads

Secret Emails Reveal How ISU Faculty Plotted to Deny Distinguished Astronomer Tenure
ISU’s tenure process and official explanation in the Gonzalez case exposed as a sham.

Iowa State University faculty plotted to deny tenure to a distinguished astronomer, as revealed in private emails written by faculty and administrators at ISU.

Discovery Institute is making public a record of secret emails exchanged among faculty at Iowa State University about noted ISU astronomer Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez.

The emails demonstrate that a campaign was organized and conducted against Gonzalez by his colleagues, with the intent to deny him tenure because of views he holds on the intelligent design (ID) of the universe, expressed in his 2004 book The Privileged Planet. In spite of his distinguished publishing career, Gonzalez was denied tenure by ISU in the spring of 2007.

Faculty involved in the tenure decision were well aware of Gonzalez’s support for ID. More than one year before his tenure evaluation was scheduled, one ISU professor wrote an e-mail that left no doubt that Gonzalez’s tenure application would never receive a fair evaluation. "He will be up for tenure next year," wrote the professor. "And if he keeps up, it might be a hard sell to the department.

Contrary to his public statements, and those of ISU President Gregory Geoffroy, the chairman of ISU’s Department of Physics and Astronomy, Dr. Eli Rosenberg, stated in Dr. Gonzalez’s tenure dossier that Dr. Gonzalez’s support for intelligent design "disqualifies him from serving as a science educator."
Read the rest of the story here.

Intelligent Design Was the Issue After All: ISU’s official explanation in Gonzalez case exposed as a sham
Internal documents show Gonzalez was denied fair tenure process by hostile colleagues who plotted behind his back, suppressed evidence, and then misled the public.

This executive summary outlines the following and includes ISU faculty quotes from e-mails siezed in a public records request last spring.

A. The Campaign to Vilify Dr. Gonzalez and Induce Him to Leave ISU.
B. The Use of Intelligent Design as a Negative Factor in Tenure Deliberations.
C. The Effort to Evade the Law by Suppressing Evidence that Could Be Used in Court to Prove a Hostile Work Environment.
D. Private admissions that Dr. Gonzalez was denied academic freedom or otherwise mistreated.
E. The Cover-Up: Department Chair Eli Rosenberg’s Effort to Mislead the Public.
F. The Rejection of the Recommendations of the Outside Reviewers.
Read the rest of the story here.
Click here to download the summary as a PDF document.

How Eli Rosenberg, Chair of ISU’s Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, Concealed Viewpoint Discrimination When Explaining Tenure Denial
Tenure votes at the earliest levels are made by a faculty member’s department, and they typically set the tone for whether that faculty member will ultimately receive tenure. Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez was ... read the rest of the story here.

Secret ISU Faculty E-mails Express Disregard for Academic Freedom
Public document requests under Iowa's Open Records Act have obtained revealing correspondence of key faculty members within ISU's Department of Physics and Astronomy. Various e-mails show that ... read the rest of the story here.

Convergent Evolution / Homology

The following is from on a continuing discussion about evolution arising from a post dated July 1, 2006.

The comment showing there are scientific fields producing evidence for evolution was: "Comparative Anatomy: This shows the same skeletal elements in the forelimbs of humans, cats, whales, and bats, showing that all have some common ancestry. This is only one small example in this field."

You may be speaking about "convergent evolution" or about the theory of "homology." Both need to be discussed together.

Convergent evolution is when species without a close common ancestor have different looking structures which perform similar functions. The wings of a fly and the wings of a bird would be an example of this. Thus if living things have parts that function the same, but have different structures, it is a proof for evolution.

Homology states that, if there is the possibility of close common ancestor, similarities in structure are due to common ancestory. Similar looking structures evolved to accomplished very different tasks. Thus, if living things have parts that function differently, but have the same structures, it is proof for evolution. This is the option I believe you are talking about.

If we look at the complete picture, what we have is: that if things look the same, it is evidence for evolution. And if things look different, it is evidence for evolution. The problem is that the assumption that evolution is true underlies the conclusions.

If the initial assumption that evolution is true is removed (as should be done for a true scientific investigation) there is a third theory. That biological structures are similar because they were created by a common designer.

So which of these three, or combination of them, has evidence to support it?

If convergent evolution is true, then we should find lots of living things (and fossils of living things) with intermediate stages showing the evolution of stuctures as the environment forces them to change.

If homology is true, then we should find lots of living things (and fossils of living things) with intermediate stages leading back to a common ancestor.

If a common designer made all things, we should see similar structures in various living things. There would be no evidence of intermediate structures. If two living things performed similar functions, but were radically different (flies and birds) we could expect to see different structures. Again there would be no evidence of intermediate structures.

When we look at reality, what do we see? Stasis. We see living things with no evidence of the required change. We do see natural selection. For example, there is evidence that all dogs came from a common ancestor, a wolf. But dogs always create more dogs, nothing else. And the structure of dogs shows no sign of the changes required for convergent evolutiuon or homology. The observable evidence, what we can see and measure (reality), favors a common creator. Comparative anatomy provides evidence for a common creator, not for evolution.