Best arguments of atheists: #1 They have no argument

 1 Peter 3:15 commands us to always be ready to give an answer to every man who asks a reason for the hope that is in us. It doesn't say to only answer the easy questions. Indeed, the more difficult the question, the more urgent should our answers be. This is the reason I blog. It's true I devote much of my blog to the creation/evolution debate but that's because I believe evolution is the greatest challenge to the Faith in our time. Even so, I'm always on the look out for other criticisms of the Bible and of Christianity.

In my quest to answer the best arguments against Christianity, I came across a forum with a thread titled, A Library of the Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God. Woohoo!! The mother-load. If I'm looking to answer the most challenging arguments against Christianity, here are the 40 best ones. At least, that's what the list's author said but as I began reading them, I didn't think the list lived up to its name. Or maybe I'm being too critical and there really aren't any good arguments for atheism. Hmm.

Anyway, in a list of the “best” arguments atheists use against God, what is the first argument – presumably, the “best of the best”? According to the list's author:

The fundamental argument for atheism is that there is no evidence or proof for God. There is no solid or tangible evidence for God nor a logical argument for God. The existence of God is taken on faith and not by evidence.

You can see why I was disappointed in the list. Is the best argument for atheism really that Christians don't have a good argument for God? Let's look at some of the many facets of this flawed reasoning.

First, there's a little hypocrisy going on. When I write about creation or evolution, I sometimes criticize the evidence for evolution. At those times, some evolutionists cry foul saying that criticizing the evidence for evolution is not evidence for creation. That's a valid point. Of course, I often write about evidence for creation (see the label on the tag cloud to the left) but if all I ever had were criticisms of evolution, that's a very weak argument for creation. Now the shoe is on the other foot. When making an argument for atheism, the unbeliever's first resort is to criticize the evidence for God. Yes, it's a very weak argument! And it's their best argument?

There are a few other facets to this weak argument. Implicit in this quote is that unbelief should be the default position of any thinking person. Atheists proudly portray themselves as skeptics who cautiously (but still “open-mindedly”) examine the evidence and go wherever it leads. //RKBentley sarcastically rolls his eyes// This author seems to make exactly that same point: until convincing evidence or some logical argument is made for God, our starting belief should be atheism.

In the past, I've used the analogy of finding a log cabin in the woods. Even if you don't know who built the cabin, you would start with the assumption that the cabin had a builder. You wouldn't start with the assumption that the cabin is just the accidental arrangement of trees that fell into the shape of a cabin. Atheists are welcome to look for some “scientific” evidence to explain the origin of matter, time, and space but I could save them time and tell them that no scientific explanation exists. Their “skeptical” starting point is about as reasonable as insisting a log cabin has no builder.

Notice, too, that the author employs the common tactic used by evolutionists of redefining faith to mean blind faith. That is, he claims we believe in God without having any evidence for God. How predictable. In my opinion, it is the atheist who exercises blind faith by believing in a purposeless, natural, uncaused origin of the universe (which I call poofism) when such a belief flies in the face of everything we know scientifically.

I've talked about evidence for God many times before. Besides the existence of matter, space, and time, I could talk about the existence of absolute morality or the apparent design in nature or the historicity of Jesus or any number of other things... but what does it matter? It's the position of this atheist – probably most atheists – that they will sit cross-armed and unbelieving without offering any good reason why. They have no evidence for atheism. Their best argument is that they have no argument!

https://unsplash.com/@usmanyousaf

Lies evolutionists tell: Human and chimp DNA are 98% similar

People who militantly defend evolution (AKA evolutionists) like to look down their noses on the “lay” public and smugly drone on about how science is the key to knowledge, how evolution is the most rigorously tested theory in science, and how they only go where the evidence leads. If that were true, why do they feel the need to tell lies to support their theory? I'm not talking about a mere difference of opinion – like how I believe the earth is around 6,000 years old and they think it's 4 billion years old. I'm talking about continuously repeating things that are objectively false. The sad thing is, many members of the public have heard these lies repeated so often, they assume they are true.

I've written series in the past where I list 5 or 10 of some of the most egregious examples but I'm not going to write a series now. Instead, I'm going to visit this topic from time to time and make each, entire post about a single lie. If you want to read all the posts published under this topic, click “lies evolutionists tell” in the label cloud in the left column.

Have said that, on to the next lie!

https://unsplash.com/@rishiragunathan

#2 Human and chimp DNA are 98% similar

When lay people are told human and chimp DNA are 98% similar, they assume it means the entire genomes are 98% similar. Evolutionists, of course, are happy to perpetuate that misunderstanding. For example, here's a quote from Scientific American:

In 1871 Charles Darwin surmised that humans were evolutionarily closer to the African apes than to any other species alive. The recent sequencing of the gorilla, chimpanzee and bonobo genomes confirms that supposition and provides a clearer view of how we are connected: chimps and bonobos in particular take pride of place as our nearest living relatives, sharing approximately 99 percent of our DNA.

I've always said that creationists don't ignore the evidence. Take fossils, for example. Both creationists and evolutionists have different ideas about how and when most fossils formed but the fossils themselves are real. When we say the fossils aren't evidence for evolution, we're not “ignoring” the fossils – we're disagreeing with certain conclusions about the fossils made by secular scientists.

What, then, am I supposed to do with this oft-repeated claim that human and chimp DNA is 98% similar? Actually, I've heard estimates ranging from 95-99%, which should have been a clue that the exact similarity really isn't precisely measured. Yet it's always cited in a way to give the impression that the similarity is “proof” of our relatedness to chimps. Since DNA is something we can study in the present, I'd always assumed the similarity was there. I wasn't going to “ignore” the evidence like creationists are often accused of doing. I simply disagreed that it was evidence that we are related to chimps.

I can see that humans and chimps have certain, physical similarities and, if DNA works like a blueprint for building an organism, then creatures that are the most similar will necessarily have the most similar DNA. Creation would predict that our DNA is most like a chimp's, less like a bear's, and least like a bird's. That's exactly what we find. So the high similarity between human and chimp DNA was never a problem for creation. I've come to realize, though, that my confidence in the reports by secular scientists about the DNA similarities was misplaced. It seems their bias toward evolution causes them to engage in some “monkey business” when comparing our genomes (pardon the pun).

The first thing you have to consider is that chimp DNA is 8-10% longer than human DNA. Here is a quote from Anthropology: The Human Challenge, p.40:

Moreover, the genetic comparison is misleading because it ignores qualitative differences among genomes. Genetic evolution involves much more than simply replacing one base with another. Thus, even among such close relatives as human and chimpanzee, we find that the chimp’s genome is estimated to be about 10 percent larger than the human’s.... [T]he tips of each chimpanzee chromosome contain a DNA sequence that is not present in humans.

I'm not a math whiz or anything but even I know that if one sentence contained 90 letters and another sentence contained only 99 letters, there is no way the two sentences are 98% similar! Just knowing that chimp DNA is longer than human DNA already proves the “98% similar” claim is false.

If the difference in the lengths of human/chimp DNA is so large, how did they arrive at such a high similarity? Here's an article from Nature.com that gives you an idea. Consider this quote from the article:

“BLASTZ was used to align non-repetitive chimpanzee regions against repeat-masked human sequence. BLAT was subsequently used to align the more repetitive regions. The combined alignments were chained and only best reciprocal alignments were retained for further analysis.”

It sounds a little technical but, in simpler terms, the highly touted similarity in human/chimp DNA is essentially achieved by comparing only the most similar parts of the DNA and ignoring everything else! Carefully read the following from the same article:

“The current [human] genome sequence (Build 35) contains 2.85 billion nucleotides interrupted by only 341 gaps.” So human DNA is 2.85 gigabases (Gb) long. The article goes on to say the, “Best reciprocal nucleotide-level alignments of the chimpanzee and human genomes cover ~2.4 gigabases (Gb) of high-quality sequence, including 89 Mb from chromosome X and 7.5 Mb from chromosome Y.”

Again, it sounds complicated so let me make this as simple as possible. The human genome is 2.85 billion nucleotides long (2.85Gb) but only 2.4Gb was examined. You can do the math: 2.4/2.85 = 84.21%. They chose only 2.4Gb to compare because it was already the most similar to chimp DNA! So the alleged 98% similarity only occurs in 82% of the genome! Remember too that chimp DNA is already longer than a human's so the actual similarity of the entire genome is going to be even less than 82%. When a letter by letter comparison is made, estimates of the similarities range between 70-80%.

So whenever you hear the 98% DNA similarity being cited as evidence that we're related to chimps, you'll know it's a lie.

Evidence for biblical creation: The existence of life

People have asked me, “What is the evidence for biblical creation?” That's a difficult question because there is often a misunderstanding about what “evidence” is. Evidence is neutral – that is, it isn't truly for any theory. Rather, theories are invented in order to explain the evidence. A theory might seem to explain the evidence rather well but then later, the theory could still be rejected in favor of a new theory. As theories come and go, the evidence is always the same. The universe just keeps chugging along like it always has and nothing has changed except the theory.

After having said that evidence isn't really for any theory, I still feel there are some things better explained by biblical creation than by secular theories. I'm not saying secular theories have no explanation for any of things things (well, I guess in some cases they don't), but that biblical creation has the most reasonable explanation and, so, is more likely the correct explanation. I'm not going to make a series of posts with the best evidence, but will make this a recurring topic that I post from time to time, with similar headings. You can find all the posts related to this topic by clicking on “Evidence for creation” in the label cloud on the left.

https://unsplash.com/@zoltantasi

THE EXISTENCE OF LIFE

There was once a time when people believed in a thing called spontaneous generation. It's the idea that life could rise spontaneously out of non-living material. For example, people used to believe that maggots would spontaneously appear in rotting meat or that mice would appear in appear a jar containing wheat husks.

Over a couple of centuries of experimentation and observation, most examples of spontaneous generation had been debunked. In the case of maggots, it was learned that flies laying their eggs on the rotting meat. It was understood that spontaneous generation did not occur in “higher” or more complex forms of life, like mice. However, the idea still endured that “simple” forms of life, like single-celled creatures, could spontaneously appear. If a jar of clean water was left in the sun, it would begin to cloud. When examined under the primitive microscopes of the 19^th century, they could see the water teeming with microorganisms.

Louis Pasteur, who was a contemporary of Charles Darwin, remained skeptical. He designed an experiment using special flasks that would allow air to reach the water but prevented air-borne microbes from falling into them. He boiled the water inside the flasks to insure that nothing already in the water was left alive. After several months, no microorganisms had formed. It was through this experiment that he devised the process we now call pasteurization. It was also the final nail in the coffin of the theory of spontaneous generation; all believed examples of life rising from non-living had been disproved.

Spontaneous generation had been replaced with the Law of Biogenesis. It is the scientific principle that life can only arise from life and not from non-living material. Of course, this creates a quandary for evolutionists: if life only comes from life, then how did life begin in the first place? What a pickle!

Secular scientists still cling to spontaneous generation, only now they call it abiogenesis. Regardless of its new title, it's still the same idea that life can arise from non-living matter. Continuing under the delusion that spontaneous generation must have happened, scientists have spent decades trying to create life in the laboratory. Yet even artificial life eludes them. The closest they ever came is the famous Miller-Urey experiment which produced some amino acids. Since DNA is made up of amino acids, they believe they had made the first step toward finding how life could arise “naturally.” It's funny how they are conducting experiments, trying to create life, just to “prove” that it happens by itself!

The problem with their experiments, is that life isn't about the material. It's about organization. Believing amino acids could somehow arrange themselves into a DNA molecule is like believing rocks could spontaneously form the pyramids! Even if all the materials necessary for life are present, there is no natural mechanism that will arrange them into a living cell.

Genesis 1 tells us that God is the Author of life. v.20 “And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.” v. 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.” In Genesis 2, God's creation culminates with the creation of Adam. v. 7 “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”

Everything we have learned from science, everything we have observed for centuries, every experiment we have ever conducted has proven over and over that the origin of life is a miracle. It cannot happen apart from a supernatural cause. Yet, in spite of all the evidence, evolutionists still want us to believe in an idea that was discarded about the same time as blood-letting!

The only rational conclusion from all of our scientific inquiry is that God created life!

Which is the greatest apostle?

Many people use the words disciple and apostle interchangeably but there is a distinct difference. Jesus had many disciples during His earthly ministry – at least hundreds, maybe thousands. Luke 6:13 tells us, “And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles;”

The Greek word we translate as “disciple” is mathétés (μαθητής , Strongs word 3101). It means “a learner; a disciple, a follower of Christ who learns the doctrines of Scripture and the lifestyle.” All Christians are commanded to be students of His word (Matthew 28:19-20) but only a few people were named apostles. The word apostle is the untranslated Greek word apostolos (ἀπόστολος, Strong's word 652) and means, “a messenger, one sent on a mission, an apostle.” The cognate verb of apostolos is apostelló, (ἀποστέλλω, Strong's word 649), which means “I send forth, send (as a messenger, commission, etc.), send away, dismiss.” Sorry. I don't mean for this to be a Greek vocabulary lesson. I'm going somewhere with this.

Luke 4:43 says, “And he said unto them, I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also: for therefore am I sent.” The term, “I am sent” sort of jumped out at me. It's a passive use of the verb apostelló. Before Jesus chose 12 men whom He would send out to preach the gospel, Jesus tells us He was sent to preach the gospel. Jesus is literally the first Apostle.

I got to thinking about which other verses use a passive form of apostelló and came across John's account of Jesus healing a blind man.

Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world. When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay, And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing. (John 9:3-7)

In this passage, Jesus, the One who was sent, puts clay on the blind man's eyes and tell him to wash in the Pool of Siloam – which means sent! Wow! Even the name of the pool is a reference to Jesus. How much more clear of a picture could be made?

The good news is not the words of Paul, John, or Peter. It is the message preached by the greatest of those who were sent – Jesus. When we need healing, when we need restoring, when we need forgiveness, we need to go to Him. We need to go to the One who was sent.

https://unsplash.com/@jhc

Lies evolutionists tell: A single fossil found out of order could disprove evolution

People who militantly defend evolution (AKA evolutionists) like to look down their noses on the “lay” public and smugly drone on about how science is the key to knowledge, how evolution is the most rigorously tested theory in science, and how they only go where the evidence leads. If that were true, why do they feel the need to tell lies to support their theory? I'm not talking about a mere difference of opinion – like how I believe the earth is around 6,000 years old and they think it's 4 billion years old. I'm talking about continuously repeating things that are objectively false. The sad thing is, many members of the public have heard these lies repeated so often, they assume they are true.

I've written series in the past where I list 5 or 10 of some of the most egregious examples but I'm not going to write a series now. Instead, I'm going to visit this topic from time to time and make each, entire post about a single lie. If you want to read all the posts published under this topic, click “lies evolutionists tell” in the label cloud in the left column.

Are we ready? Then let's get started!

https://unsplash.com/@anniespratt

#1 Richard Dawkins once wrote: “Evolution could so easily be disproved if just a single fossil turned up in the wrong date order. Evolution has passed this test with flying colours.” (The Greatest Show on Earth, p. 147)

This quote just annoys me (I mean, besides the peculiar, European way that Dawkins spelled “colors”). Dawkins may have made this particular quote, but I've heard a similar sentiment expressed many times in different ways. You may have heard someone say something like, “Evolution would be disproved if we found a rabbit in the Cambrian.” Dawkins tells this lie to make it sound like evolution is a very robust theory that is tested every time a new fossil is found. Don't be fooled by his hubris. These quotes and every quote like them are all lies. They are lies on so many different levels, I'm not sure I can cover them all in a single post. Of course, I'm going to try!

First, there is a very subtle lie that is easy to overlook. Dawkins used the phrase “date order.” By doing this, he immediately projects the idea of time onto the fossil record; thus, fossils found lower in the fossil record are “older” than the ones above them. The reality is that the order in which fossils are buried simply demonstrates the order in which they were buried. It is the long age assumptions of their theory that says lower fossils are older.

According to YEC (young earth creationism), most of the fossil bearing, geological column was formed during the Flood event. The lower fossils may have buried first but they're not necessarily “older.” If I filled a glass with ice, the cubes on the bottom were laid down first but they're not “older” than the cubes above them. By referring to where fossils appear as the “date order,” Dawkins is creating the false impression that their sequence represents, de facto, when the creatures lived. It's a lie.

Next, there is an experiment I want you to do: Google the words “fossil redraws evolution” and see what results you get. Go ahead. Try it now. I'll wait. //RKBentley taps his foot patiently// When I did this, at the time of the writing of this post, there were 3.3 million results. Let me show you a small sample of what I found:

Giant Flying Squirrel Redraw Family Tree (2018): “This Spanish fossil discovery has helped palaeontologists to redraw the evolutionary tree of the squirrel family. That branch of the Sciuridae that led to modern flying squirrels must have diverged many millions of years earlier than previously thought.” This quote from the article clearly states that a single fossil find showed scientists had been wrong about the date of divergence that led to flying squirrels by “many millions of years”! Was evolution disproved? Nope. They merely redrew the tree and, instead of proving the theory false, the find actually made the theory better. How convenient! //RKBentley rolls his eyes//

Humans Evolved 100,000 Years Earlier Than We Thought – But Mysteries Remain (2017): “Newly discovered fossil discoveries in Africa have pushed back the age we know modern humans roamed the Earth by roughly 100,000 years—and injected profound doubt into what we thought we knew about where humanity first arose.” Wow! Modern humans are believed by scientists to be only 200,000 years old. So certainly a 300,000 year old fossil of a modern human must qualify as being in the wrong date order, right? Of course it does, but it won't disprove the theory. NOTHING can disprove the theory no matter how out of order it is!

Concerning rabbits in the Precambrian, we haven't found any yet. But it wouldn't even matter if we did because evolutionists have preemptively disqualified that as a potential way to disqualify evolution. From the pro-evolution site, RationalWiki, we read the following:

J. B. S. Haldane famously stated that "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian" would disprove evolution — and this has been a talking point in philosophy of science for some time. This phrase is reported to be a rebuttal to the accusations that evolution is not falsifiable. However, the reality of disproving evolution in this manner is quite complicated. As science is based on an interplay between theory and evidence a single point of data is not enough to completely destroy a theory - just as much as an excellent theory can't win out against overwhelming data. Such a thing as finding fossilised rabbits wouldn't cause scientists to throw the theory of evolution out completely and immediately, so a little more explanation is needed.

Do you see what I mean? Not even a fossil rabbit found in the Precambrian would be enough to throw out the theory. Every time some fossil turns up in the wrong place, evolutionists simply go back to the text books and redraw all the lines on the paper. How many times do they have to be wrong on some point of the theory before they begin to question the theory itself? How many times are they allowed to redraw the evolutionary tree until people begin to realize there is no tree?!

Just to be clear, I don't believe any of the dates evolutionists are assigning to these fossils.  I'm merely pointing out that they even get their own dates to agree.  Dawkins quote is fluff. He speaks it with confidence in order to bolster evolution and make it seem unassailable but it's all smoke and mirrors. For him to boldly say the theory stands up to every new discovery is laughable. There's no polite way to put it – he's lying!

Have scientists found talking rocks?

https://unsplash.com/@dyaa

Have scientists found talking rocks?  I ask because I read this quote online once:

When the rocks say they are 4 billion years old and the Bible says they are less than 10,000 years old; who do you believe: the author of the Bible or the author of the rocks?

I thought it was strange because my family is from eastern Kentucky and I grew up visiting the hills of Appalachia. I've literally seen mountains of rocks and in all my life, I've never heard any of them “say” anything.

This is a type of fallacy called reification – specifically, it is the fallacy of misplaced concreteness. You see, rocks can't tell us anything. They can't tell us how old they are. They can't tell us how they were formed. They can't say anything because they are literally dumb rocks (dumb as in can't speak). When you read somewhere that a rock is 4 billion years old, you can be certain the rock didn't say it. Someone has assigned that age to rock but he's presenting the age as though it's an objective fact rather than his untestable conclusion.

“Age” is something that cannot be observed. It's not a quality that can be measured the same way something's weight can be measured. You can't put “age” on scale or put it against a ruler or put it under a microscope. Even when I look at a person, I can't see his age. I can only see things like how gray his hair is, is his skin wrinkled, how frail he might seem, and other features. I can compare those things I associate with age and guess at a stranger's age, but I can't actually see “age.”

When scientists want to find the age of a rock, there are a couple of ways they might do it. One way is through radiometric dating. Uranium, for example, is an unstable isotope that decays very slowly over time and becomes lead. If a scientist can determine the ratio of uranium to lead, he could extrapolate backwards and try to estimate how long it would have taken the uranium to decay into that amount of lead. Other people can test the same rock sample and maybe reach the same conclusion the first scientist did. The problem is, they can't reproduce the millions of years! In other words, if a scientist says a rock is 65 million years old, there is no way to go back 65 million years and see if that's truly when the rock was formed.

When scientists tell us the ages of rocks, I'm sure they're very confident about their conclusion. But, at the end of the day, the claimed age of the rock is only their estimate which ultimately cannot be verified. I know this because the rock has said nary a word. If would be more accurate if the scientist asked, “When I say the rocks are 4 billion years old, and the Bible says they are less than 10,000 years old, who do you believe: me or the Bible?”

I believe there is a lot of scientific evidence against evolution. But if I had to decide who to believe between the secular scientists and the Bible, then the Bible wins hands down. Call me a zealot if you wish but we have the written revelation of the One who created the rocks. I trust the clear reading of His word over what the dumb rocks say because ROCKS DON'T TALK!

1 Chronicles 16:30: Does the Bible say the earth doesn't move?

https://unsplash.com/@claybanks

Skeptics will often attack the words of the Bible in an effort to undermine the faith of Christians. A common criticism is to allege the Bible teaches the sun orbits the earth (a model called, “geocentrism”). To support their claims, critics will sometimes quote some verse out of Psalms (which is a book of poetry) and assert the Bible is stating it as fact.

One verse not – not from Psalms – that is often cited is 1 Chronicles 16:30:

“Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.”

At first hearing, this criticism seems to have legs. Attention, skeptics; I'm using a figure of speech – it doesn't “literally” have legs. //RKBentley chuckles// Anyway, unlike the highly figurative book of Psalms, the genre of 1 Chronicles is historical narrative. So in the midst of a historical event, the Bible seems to say the earth doesn't move. A quick look at the context, however, quickly dispels that notion.

First, the passage is clearly introduced as a psalm (that is, a “song” or “prayer”) by David. 1 Chronicles 16:7 says, “Then on that day David delivered first this psalm to thank the LORD....” As in the Book of Psalms, David is using a poetic description to convey a spiritual truth – not necessarily a literal truth. Notice in the same passage, David also says the sea “roars,” the fields “rejoice,” and the trees “sing.” Why do the critics ignore these obvious metaphors and pounce on how the earth “be not moved”? I think we all know the answer – trees “singing” is so obviously metaphoric that if critics claimed it was literal, they would be laughed at.  Yet they still claim the Bible is teaching geocentrism. It's a clear case of quote-mining.

Another thing we must consider is what the Bible means by words like “world” or “earth.” Notice how David started his prayer saying, “fear before Him all the earth...” David may be talking about the literal planet, but even then, it would still qualify as a metaphor. Commanding the to earth fear Him is not unlike saying the fields rejoice. But the passage is more likely it's referring to the people of the earth! Certainly the planet earth itself isn't going to literally fear the LORD. It most likely means, the people of the earth should fear Him. There are several passages in the Bible where “world” or “earth” are used to describe its inhabitants rather than the planet itself.

Isaiah 13:11 “And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity....”

1 Chronicles 16:33 “Then shall the trees of the wood sing out at the presence of the LORD, because he cometh to judge the earth.”

In both of these verses, it is clear that God is going to judge the people of the world/earth – not the planet itself. In Luke2:1, when Caesar commanded that, “all the world should be taxed,” who do you think was expected to pay taxes?

We must also ask what is meant by “not moved.” The most ordinary meaning, of course, is that it means “stationary” and that is what critics claim it means here. However, “not moved” can also mean, “not moved from it's course” or “unpersuaded.” Psalm 21:7 says, “For the king trusteth in the LORD, and through the mercy of the most High he shall not be moved.” This passage is not saying “the king will remain motionless.” It's saying, rather, that the king will not be turned away from trusting the Lord.

In a sincere poem of praise and thanks, David seems to be saying that God has established the ways of the earth (or its people) and it/they will not waver or stray from the ways He established. Yet critics want to ignore the entire context of the passage, and assert that the Bible intends a poetic expression to be a statement of fact. Don't they teach the use of literary devices in 6^th or 7^th grade English? It's no wonder that skeptics see the Bible as rife with errors; they must have trouble reading!

Giraffes have 7 neck bones – still not enough to prove evolution!

Photo by RKBentley, 2Peter119.blogspot.com

Giraffes have seven cervical vertebrae (neck bones). Given that a giraffe's neck is so much longer than a human's, some people are surprised to learn that humans also have seven neck bones. The fact of the matter is that nearly every mammal has seven neck bones – mice, horses, bats, and even whales. I've heard it proposed that this is because all mammals have descended from a common ancestor which also had seven neck bones, so the near universal number of seven cervical vertebrae is strong evidence for evolution. Blah, blah, blah.

The whole thing sounds very contrived to me so I started thinking about ways to test this theory. Like any scientific theory, we should be able to use it to make predictions, right? So if different species of mammals have the same number of vertebrae because they are descended from the same common ancestor, what else might I expect to be true?

The first thing I would check is if all mammals do indeed have seven neck bones. Is that what we find? The short answer is, no. As has already been said, most do but the two-toed sloth only has 5-7 neck bones. The three-toed sloth has 8-10. Manatee only have 6. What's amusing is that evolution would predict that the two-toed and three-toed sloths are even more closely related than giraffes and humans, yet even the sloths don't share the same number of neck bones as each other! So this prediction not only fails, it fails miserably!

Another thing we might predict is that if mammals have the same number of neck bones because of common descent from a single ancestor, there would be a similar number of vertebrae found in other parts of the spine. A quick check of Wiki shows this isn't the case. In the thoracic vertebrae, numbers vary between 12-15 in different species of mammals. In the lumbar region, most mammals have 6-7 vertebrae but some species can have up to 20. The number of vertebrae in the sacral region varies between 3-10. Any similarity in the number of vertebrae in the mammalian spine exists only in the cervical area and even that isn't universal. Another failed prediction!

Besides the spine, we might predict there should be a discernible pattern in the number of ribs among different mammal species. Well, there isn't any. Mammals have varying numbers of ribs between 6-15 pairs. Even in the much-championed, “horse-evolution” sequence, there are reversals back and forth in the number of ribs between alleged ancestor and the supposed transitions leading up to the modern horse. Still another fail.

Next, we're going to broaden this a little. Just like evolutionists claim the coincidental number of mammal neck bones is the result of common descent, they also claim the similarity in the forelimbs of humans and other animals (whale fins, bird wings, lizard feet, etc), is the result of common descent. The say the ubiquitous pattern of radius/ulna, carpals, metacarpals, and phalanges is evidence that all these different creatures have descended from a common ancestor who had these features originally. Follow me now: so if the bones in our forelimbs resemble bird wings because we both have a common ancestor, might we also expect that birds to have seven neck bones? We might, but they don't. Birds have far more cervical vertebrae, usually between 13-25. So if our similar forelimbs is evidence for common descent, wouldn't our different number of neck bones be evidence against common descent? Another fail for evolution!

Now, if all mammals (well, we've already seen it's not all mammals) have the same number of cervical vertebrae, could we expect something similar to occur among the members of other classes? Do all birds, for example, have the same number of cervical vertebrae? No. Do all reptiles? No. Do all amphibians? No. Why does common descent “explain” this common feature among mammals when we don't see a similar thing occur among the other classes of animals? Fail.

Finally, birds are alleged to have evolved from dinosaurs. If descent with modification is true, then wouldn't there be some correlation in the number of cervical vertebrae between birds and dinosaurs? Well, there isn't any. Long-necked sauropods had up to 19 cervical vertebrae. Most bipedal dinosaurs had less. Birds have up to 25. Fail. Fail. Fail.

Time after time, we see that things we might predict if evolution were true aren't found. Any claim that the common number of neck bones among mammals is evidence of descent from a common ancestor is nothing more than special pleading. If the same number of vertebrae is evidence for evolution, than differing numbers should be evidence against the theory. Of course, evolutionists don't see it that way. They're perfectly content with a theory that could explain the same number of neck bones in different species but doesn't require it. In other words, they have a scientific theory that doesn't really explain or predict anything.

Not a very good “theory,” is it?

Evidence for biblical creation: The existence of matter/energy

People have asked me, “What is the evidence for biblical creation?” That's a difficult question because there is often a misunderstanding about what “evidence” is. Evidence is neutral – that is, it isn't truly for any theory. Rather, theories are invented in order to explain the evidence. A theory might seem to explain the evidence rather well but then later, the theory could still be rejected in favor of a new theory. As theories come and go, the evidence is always the same. The universe just keeps chugging along like it always has and nothing has changed except the theory.

After having said that evidence isn't really for any theory, I still feel there are some things better explained by biblical creation than by secular theories. I'm not saying secular theories have no explanation for any of things things (well, I guess in some cases they don't), but that biblical creation has the most reasonable explanation and, so, is more likely the correct explanation. I'm not going to make a series of posts with the best evidence, but will make this a recurring topic that I post from time to time, with similar headings. You can find all the posts related to this topic by clicking on “Evidence for creation” in the label cloud on the left.

THE EXISTENCE OF MATTER/ENERGY

https://unsplash.com/@vklemen

There is a law in science that you may have heard described this way: “Matter/Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms.” According to this scientific principle, if the total of all matter/energy in the universe was assigned a value of 1 at the moment the universe began, that total would still equal 1 today – no more, no less. This creates a quandary for secular science: if neither matter nor energy are being created, where did all the matter in the universe come from in the first place? There are only 2 options: energy either has to be eternal or it had to begin to exist.

The idea of an eternally old universe has its own host of problems which I'll have to deal with in another post. In this post, we'll deal with idea that the universe began to exist since this is the prevailing view anyway. The “Big Bang” theory suggests that all time/matter/space came into being from “nothing” when a singularity began to expand and become our universe.

Before anything began to exist, nothing had to exist, right? Yet there is no scientific process by which nothing can create anything. Such a point is so ridiculously absurd that I find it incredible there are people who argue against it. In his book, The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking said, “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” How could such a bright guy make such a nonsensical statement? How could there even be a law such as gravity if nothing existed? Physical laws, such as gravity, are very likely properties of matter. At the very least, physical laws describe how matter behaves. In any event, if nothing exists, then neither do physical laws exist. Logically speaking, something cannot create itself so how could a physical laws create physical laws?

Secular scientists will always appeal to a natural cause for any phenomenon. But in the case of the universe that's sort of like saying nature created nature. It's laughable. The cause for nature has to be something outside of nature. It must be supernatural by definition. Right?

You can either believe in the Supernatural Creator who made everything or you can believe nothing created everything. Which do you think better explains the origin of the universe?

Genesis 2:1-2 says, “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.”

God created the heavens, earth, and everything in them in six days. Then He rested on the 7^th – that is, He stopped creating. What we observe in the universe, everything we've learned from science, and every ounce of common sense we can muster tells us the Bible is true.

When I look at the Grand Canyon, I see dead things!

By Lennart Sikkema - Imported from 500px (archived version) by the Archive Team. (detail page), CC BY 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=73619388

I've never seen the Grand Canyon personally but I hear it's... well, it's grand! It's considered one of the “Natural Wonders of the World” and I'm sure that to stand overlooking the canyon inspires awe in most people. Yet when I think about the canyon, I see dead things. In those layers of rock are millions of dead things all snuffed out and buried in a moment. From top to bottom, it's a fossil graveyard.

In the Grand Canyon, we have a stone monument attesting to God's wrath. It is the catastrophe which we call, Noah's Flood, that formed the canyon. In that deluge, brought on by the wickedness of men, millions of creatures were buried. Every fossil we find tells us that there is a God who judges sin. Each one reminds us that the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). In every shovel of dirt that we turn over we find another affirmation that the Bible is true.

As we look out and see the physical evidence of God's judgment, we also should stop to consider, “If God destroyed the world because of sin, how can I still be here to see it?” Therein lies a paradox. It is only because Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD (Genesis 6:8) that we can be here now to see the evidence of His wrath. The same God Who judged the world, also provided salvation to Noah. Noah was delivered through the Flood in the Ark while all those outside of the Ark perished. So as we see the evidence of God's judgment, we simultaneously experience the evidence of His mercy.

It is as if we can see the gospel written in stone. I'm reminded of Jesus' triumphant entry into Jerusalem where He said that if the people did not praise Him, the stones themselves would cry out (Luke 19:40). Every fossil we find is another stone that cries out about our need of a Savior.

God hasn't changed. He still judges sin and the penalty for sin is still death. And even now, God has provided a deliverance from judgment – Jesus Christ. As is says in John 3:36, “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”

Sometimes, “no” really means, “NO!”

I used to think that learning another language simply meant learning another vocabulary. When I began studying Greek, however, I learned that other languages also have different rules of grammar, different idioms, and just quirky things that are completely different than how we understand English. Slavish, word-for-word translations will seldom convey the same meaning in the original language and the target language. In English, for example, we tend to avoid using double negatives. We wouldn't say, “I don't have no money.” However, in Greek, the language of the New Testament, there are frequent examples of double negatives.

The reason we avoid double negatives in English is because the two negatives tend to cancel each other and the literal meaning becomes the opposite of the intended meaning. If you carefully consider the above example, to say you don't have no money, would seem to mean you're saying you do have money. You should say instead, “I have no money” or “I don't have money.”

https://unsplash.com/@jannerboy62

In Greek, there are different ways of saying, “no.” One way is with the word, ou [οὐ, Strong's word 3756] which is a simple term of negation: The Greek word legō [λέγω, Strong's word 3004] means, “I say.” So ou legō would mean, “I do not say.” Another way is with the word, mē [μὴ, Strong's word 3361]. mē is used in the oblique moods - the moods of contingency: legēte “you should say,” becomes mē legēte, “you should not say.”

Unlike English, where two negatives cancel each other, two negatives in Greek create an emphatic expression. Ou mē legēte, together wouldn't be translated as “You don't not say.” Rather it's an emphatic denial: “You absolutely should not say!”

Because of the different uses of double negatives in Greek and English, the emphatic force of the verse is sometimes lost in translation. Here are some verses that have double negatives in the original Greek. As you read them, try to mentally insert a strong negation – something like, “not in any way possible.” I've highlighted the ou mē occurrence with bold font.

• “And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.” (Matthew 10:42)

• “But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst” (John 4:14)

• “And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.” (John 6:35)

• “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.” (John 6:37)

• “Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.” (John 8:51)

• “And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” (John 10:28)

• “And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die.” (John 11:26)

• “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.” (Revelation 2:11)

• “He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.” (Revelation 3:5)

Isn't Jesus wonderful?! I can just imagine the gospel writers trying to recreate the passion Jesus displayed as He spoke these verses. In just that first verse above, it's like I can see Jesus speaking to his disciples, promising them that if they only gave a drink of cold water in His name, there is no way, at all, ever, they would not be rewarded for it! He didn't speak promises lightly or insincerely. He spoke them emphatically and we know He is able to keep His word.

So remember, as you read those verses where Jesus says, “no,” He sometimes is saying, “NO!”