The Bible is true because it says it’s true!! Right?

A poster in an atheist, Fakebook group recently made the following statement:

Ever heard this? “The Bible is true because it’s the Word of God… and we know it’s the Word of God because the Bible says so.”

That’s Circular Reasoning — a logical loop that never leaves the starting point.

Example:

> “All Scripture is God-breathed…” (2 Timothy 3:16)

This verse is often used to “prove” the Bible’s divine origin… by quoting the Bible itself. It’s like a used car salesman saying, “Trust me, this car is perfect — just look, it’s written right here on the bumper sticker.”

Real evidence doesn’t need to refer back to itself to be convincing — it can be tested, examined, and confirmed from outside sources. If your proof is just “because I said so,” it’s not proof — it’s just repetition.

In other words, this atheist is trying to say, “Christians claim the Bible is true because the Bible says it’s true!”  This is a criticism I’ve seen leveled toward Christians many times.  It’s more of a straw man than a legit criticism, though, because I don’t know any Christian who really says this.  The reality is the exact opposite.  The Bible says it’s true because it IS true!

Let me explain; my name is Bentley.  Really.  That’s my name.  If someone asked me my name, I wouldn’t say my name isn’t Bentley.  I wouldn’t say my name is John Smith.  I wouldn’t say Bentley could be my name.  I would say my name is Bentley!  I’m affirming something that is true.  If I’m being honest, and Bentley is really my name, then you would expect me to confirm that it is.  In that same way, the Bible confirms itself to be true because it is true.  Get it?

Now, if I tried to claim the Bible was true but the Bible itself said that truth cannot be known, then we would have a problem.  If truth cannot be known then anything the Bible says can be suspect.  How would I even know if the statement, “truth cannot be known,” is a true statement?  The existence of absolute truth seems to be an ontological necessity.  To even say, “Nothing can be known absolutely,” is itself an absolute statement.  To claim that truth is relative or that it’s subjective or that truth cannot be known are all self-defeating statements. Here's some irony for you: All arguments against absolute truth only serve to make obvious the reality of absolute truth!

The Bible is true and it confirms itself to be true.  It’s not circular reasoning.  I’m not claiming the Bible is true because it says it’s true.  No one is claiming that.  I’ve tried explaining this to atheists before but they can’t put aside their own, flawed, talking points long enough to understand it.  Please, let’s put that straw man to bed and get on to the real question: How do we know the Bible is true?  If anyone sincerely seeks to know what is true, that is the question he needs to be asking. 

Answering the question, How do we know the Bible is true, is far more challenging than picking apart the straw man argument built by atheists.  I could talk about the number of extant manuscripts and the science of textual criticism; I could talk about the historical certainty of Jesus, His miracles, and His resurrection; I could talk about all the archeological finds that confirm events discussed in the Bible; I could talk about the superior wisdom of the Bible in describing the human experience; or I could talk about my life experience in seeing of the moral correctness taught in the Bible.  All of these things might seem persuasive but we need to be careful about how we conclude the Bible is true.  After all, is the Bible true because some other thing says it’s true?  If that were the case, we may be putting the authority of the other things above the authority of the Bible! The skeptic above revealed that he believed the ultimate authority resides in these other things when he said, "Real evidence doesn’t need to refer back to itself to be convincing — it can be tested, examined, and confirmed from outside sources. "

If the Bible is true, then it is true regardless of anyone else’s opinion.  How can I say, I’ve studied the Bible and found that it's true?  Who am I to give my opinion on the revelation of the Omniscient One?  Let me be clear: I am not the judge of the Bible - the Bible is the judge of me.  I will not say the Bible is true because I judge it to be true!  I am not that proud!

So how do I answer the question?  I’ve struggled to come up with a good illustration so let me tell you how I see it.  This might seem a little far fetched but hear me out.  Don’t laugh until I'm finished.

Does anyone remember the scene from The Karate Kid where Miyagi agrees to teach Daniel karate?  You can watch the scene on YouTube (here) but I’ve transcribed the relevant part:

Miyagi: “First make sacred pact.  I promise teach karate - that my part.  You promise learn.  I say, you do.  No questions.  That your part. Deal?”

Daniel: “Deal.”

As Daniel holds his hand out to shake on the agreement, Miyagi puts a sponge in his hand and tells him to wash and wax the cars.  When Daniel starts to protest, Miyagi cuts him off and reminds him of the agreement.  If Miyagi says it, then Daniel should do it without question. 

If you haven’t seen the movie, you’ve missed a treasure that helped shape the teen experience in the 80s.  That's too bad. Anyway, there was a reason Miyagi had him wax the cars (“Wax on.  Wax off.”).  And it wasn’t just waxing the cars, it was also sanding the floor, painting the fence, and painting the house.  It wasn’t until after Daniel had done all these things that Miyagi’s karate training became apparent.  

But let's back up a little, why did Daniel agree to enter into this “sacred pact” with Miyagi.  Daniel had moved to a new city where he was being bullied by a group of teens from Cobra Kai, the local karate school.  Miyagi was the maintenance man from Daniel’s apartment complex.  One night, as the rowdy teens were violently beating Daniel, Miyagi rescued him and defeated the entire gang single-handedly.  It was after this, that Miyagi agreed to teach Daniel karate and made the sacred pact.  Daniel agreed to do whatever Miyagi said - not because he was the greater authority than Miyagi but because he realized Miyagi was a greater authority than him!

So, now, let’s land this plane.  I don’t know more than the Bible.  Rather, God has given me the ability to reason (Isaiah 1:18) and I have come to realize that the Bible has more wisdom than I have.  It is this realization that has led me to lay down my own authority and submit to the authority of the Scripture.  I didn’t judge the Bible as true by my own arrogance, haughtiness, or pride.  Instead, I yield myself to its commands out of obedience, humility, and meekness.

Consider these words of Jesus:

John 14:21, He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

So you see, when we trust Jesus, He makes Himself known to us.  Jesus said, “why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46).  When I asked Jesus to be my Savior, I also made Him my Lord.  I don’t always understand His commands.  I don’t always know His plan.  I certainly don’t always obey Him like I should.  Yet the more I try to be obedient, the more I come to see the truth of His promises.  That is how I know the Bible is true.

Once we yield ourselves to God’s word, then the truth of them becomes more obvious.  Just as I was saying above, the truth affirms the truth.  Of course textual criticism affirms the integrity of the Bible, of course archaeology reveals the veracity of the Bible, and of course everything the Bible proscribes is morally correct.  The Bible is true and every light by which we might examine it will show that it is true.

Eternal universe? I’m still not convinced!

I seem to have struck a nerve with a few unbelievers on X.com with my last post (here).  I had given five problems in believing the universe is eternally old and some critics tried to explain why I was wrong.  One skeptic in particular made a brief rebuttal to each point.  Other skeptics chimed in with similar thoughts.  

I don’t normally engage skeptics too much on social media.  It seems like once it starts, it’s hard to end the conversation and it ends up consuming all my time.  Instead, I thought I’d take some of their comments and address them here, in a new post.  Maybe they’ll leave future comments on my blog.

Before getting into their comments, one thing that struck me is that, by criticizing my arguments against an infinitely old universe, I can only assume they are tacitly admitting that the universe is infinitely old.  Once upon a time, some people believed in the Steady State Theory of the universe.  Explainingscience.org describes the theory this way:

[F]or a while the Steady State theory was very popular. This theory was developed in 1948 by Fred Hoyle (1915-2001), Herman Bondi (1919-2005) and Thomas Gold (1920-2004) as an alternative to the Big Bang to explain the origin and expansion of the Universe. At the heart of the Steady State theory is the Perfect Cosmological Principle. This states that the Universe is infinite in extent, infinitely old and, taken as a whole, it is the same in all directions and at all times in the past and at all times in the future.  In other words, the Universe doesn’t evolve or change over time.

We see that the Steady State Theory is an alternative to the Big Bang.  It’s not especially popular anymore and the Big Bang Theory is now the most widely accepted origin story in the secular science community.  Holders to the Steady State Theory are definitely the minority and could be described as fringe.  So, as I read the comments attempting to rebut my five points, I had to ask myself, do these people really believe in an infinitely old universe?  I doubt the critics commenting on my X thread really endorse the Steady State Theory.  I think, instead, they were simply disagreeing with a creationist without realizing they essentially agree with all my points.  Oh the irony!!

The primary critic posting on my thread goes by the handle God Fodder (@PeteAlonSoCrazy).  In his bio is the hash tag, #Atheism, which leads me to believe maybe there’s a bias there.  No worries; I have a bias too.  It’s just nice to know his frame of mind as I read his arguments.  I’m using his points to outline my rebuttal.  

To be fair, due to character limits on X, God Fodder had to keep his rebuttals to a few sentences.  I think he made his points fairly well and I think it’s obvious what he was getting at with all of them.  However, if had been able to write longer responses, he might have made better arguments.  But, these are all I have so they are what I have to work with.

Are we ready, then?  Let’s look at some of the comments.  I will note my points with RKB and his response with GF:

RKB: 1. It's not scientific.

GF: Yes because the origin of the universe is UNKNOWN. God is in the same boat. Not an argument against it.

OK, so on point #1 we are in agreement.  Claiming the universe is eternally old is a faith statement not unlike a religious dogma.  I’ve written before about how some things in science rely on faith and how scientism is a danger to science.  

My pointing out the faith-like assumptions behind believing the universe is infinitely old is meant to disqualify it from being scientific.  People only cling to it because they don’t want to believe in an Eternal Creator.  In a real sense, they are merely using their faith to attack my faith.

By the way, GF also has contradicted an oft used criticism of creationism.  Creationists are often told that creation can’t be true because it’s not scientific!!  So I agree with GF -  just because something isn’t scientific isn’t sufficient to prove it’s not true.

RKB: Entropy

GF: Without knowing the cause of the Big Bang causes this is complete guesswork.  Let me guess, entropy magically does not apply to god? Why?

GF is employing a sort of “you too” response as though it excuses him from explaining why the universe isn’t already in total entropy.  It seems, to me, a tacit admission that an enterally old universe should have reached entropy already but, since God hasn’t reached entropy, then it doesn’t matter.  //RKBentley scratches his head// 

There is nothing in this response - not one thing - that attempts to explain how energy could be eternally old without having reached heat death.  Let me remind the readers, too, that claiming the universe is infinitely old yet still has usable energy is to admit that perpetual motion exists!

Concerning God, entropy is a property of the universe.  It’s an observed part of nature.  God, by definition, is supernatural so I don’t expect the things of nature to apply to Him.  This is like saying, “How could Jesus walk on water?  Does gravity or buoyancy magically not apply to Him?”  

RKB: Time

GF: How does an eternal consciousness experience time?  Eternal god has just as many issues if not more.

More “you too.”  Sigh.  God does not experience time.  Psalm 90:4 tells us of the Lord, “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.”  

Time is a property of the universe.  We experience time.  Since God is transcendent and supernatural, therefore, there’s no reason to believe He experiences time like us.  

Again, there’s no rebuttal here.  The inescapable conclusion of the Steady State Theory is that we have arrived here after infinity has already passed!

RKB: Universe is expanding.

GF: So what? It could be in a cycle or big bangs could be repeated.  Why would a god make an expanding universe?  What’s the point?

I see a lot of things wrong with GF’s response.  First, a cycle of bang-crunch-bang-crunch universes is another faith statement (see point #1).  There is no scientific evidence to support it.

Next, this flies in the face of entropy (see point #2).  Imagine a spring that continuously springs out, then contracts again - infinitely!  What, it never runs out of energy?  It’s perpetual motion all over again.

Finally, what about Aristotle’s “First Cause” argument?  GF is simply invoking an infinite regress of bang-crunch events with nothing to start the chain.  It’s turtles all the way down to him!

RKB: Bible

GF: Who care what an ancient story book says?  

Really bad reasoning here.

There are billions of people in the world who care very much about what the Bible says.  Why do you think the Bible is still so popular after more than 2,000 years?  

I believe the Bible for the same reasons I believe anything - I’m convinced that it’s true.  There are myriad reasons I believe it’s true but I’ll have to save that discussion for another time.  To ignore the Bible in favor of a theory that makes literally no sense would indeed be “really bad reasoning”!

The Greek New Testament does not call the Holy Spirit an it!

Grammatical gender is rather ordinary in most languages but completely absent from English.  In English, men are he/him, women are she/her, and everything else is an it.  Because English follows a sort of “natural gender,” English speakers often believe gender in other languages also denotes the sex or personhood of what is being discussed.  If a noun in another language is masculine, for example, English speakers assume it denotes a human male.  

Grammatical gender is merely a type of grammatical designation.  In Spanish, for example, the word for a lady’s dress is el vestido, which is masculine, while the word for a man’s necktie is la corbata, which is feminine.  This seems totally absurd to English speakers because a lady’s dress should obviously be feminine and the necktie, masculine!  

In my opinion, it’s unfortunate we even use the word gender to describe it.  It might help native-English speakers if we imagine the word class when talking about gender.  For example, instead of saying masculine nouns, we could say class-M nouns.  SInce this blog is written in English, I’m assuming the people who read it also speak English so grouping nouns into classes instead of gender might help you as you think about this post.  

Spanish only has two genders: masculine and feminine.  There is no neuter gender in Spanish.  However, Greek has three genders, masculine, feminine, and neuter.  Since the New Testament was written in Greek and since English uses he, she, and it, the tendency to project our English understanding of gender onto the text becomes almost irresistible.  Therefore, problems sometimes arise when people try to use the gender of a Greek word to make a doctrinal point.  

A blog that calls itself Examining the Trinity has pointed out that the Holy Spirit in the original Greek is neuter.  They went on to say this:

But "Holy Spirit" in the original Greek is neuter and therefore the neuter pronouns "it," "itself" are used with it in the original NT Greek! Any strictly literal Bible translation would have to use "it" for the holy spirit (since it is really not a person, but God's active force, a literal translation would be helpful in this case).

This is an extremely amateurish argument. It demonstrates how a little knowledge can be dangerous. Most people who use this argument really can't read Greek. Instead, they have heard once that the Greek word for “Spirit” is neuter so, because of their understanding of English, they buy into the argument that the Spirit is an “it.” Of course, there are some people who indeed understand Greek's grammatical use of gender but still repeat the argument with the intention of preying on the audience's ignorance of the subject.

First, this is a blatant example of special pleading because the same people who raise this argument don't apply this same standard everywhere. In Matthew 2:11, for example,  the Bible says the wise men, “saw the young child with Mary his mother.” The Greek word for child here (paidion, παιδίον, Strong’s word 3813) is neuter so, to be consistent, they should translate this verse as “they saw the young child with Mary its mother.” Of course they don't do that. Neither do they refer to the church as her or the book as him or “correctly” render the hundred other instances where Greek gender does not agree with English ideas of gender.

There's another subtle flaw in the above quote that might escape notice. The author seems unaware of the flaw and cites a source that commits the same mistake. See if you can spot it in this quote:

The Greek word for 'spirit' is neuter, and while we use personal pronouns in English ('he,' 'his,' 'him'), most Greek manuscripts employ 'it.' [bold in original]

Did you catch it? If not, don't feel bad because it's sort of a technicality and some might accuse me of splitting hairs. However, I feel it's an important consideration. This quote says, “most Greek manuscripts employ 'it.'” The reality is that NO Greek manuscript contains the word, it! The word it is an English word which conveys a certain meaning in English. It is more precise to say that the Greek manuscripts use the neuter pronoun (auton) whenever the antecedent is a neuter noun. The original authors were not thinking “it” whenever they wrote "auton." Again, think, “class” instead of gender and it might help.  Class-N nouns use class-N pronouns.  

A language is more than its vocabulary; each language also has its own grammar as well as its own idioms. The goal of any translation is to express the same meaning in the target language that is conveyed in the original language. A good translation should obey the rules of the target language – not slavishly render a hyper-literal, word for word exchange of the original language. The pronouns used in our translations should follow the rules of English, not Greek! If the antecedent is an object, the English pronoun should be it. If the antecedent is a person, the English pronoun should be he or she.

If anyone wants to deny the Personhood of the Holy Spirit, he must make his case using Scripture. A weak appeal to the gender of a Greek word – especially an appeal made by someone who can't even read Greek – isn't even close.

7 simple facts that prove evolution is impossible!

There’s a sort of No True Scotsman argument that works off the premise that if someone doesn’t believe evolution, it must be because he doesn’t understand it!  Evolutionists will often admit there are some things they don’t understand about evolution - like how, where, or when things evolved - but their lack of understanding will never lead them to doubt the theory itself.  They might wonder how something evolved but they will eagerly profess that it evolved!

Of course, I have a completely different opinion of the situation.  I am convinced that, if more people understood evolution, fewer people would believe it.  The more I’ve studied evolution, the more impossible I see that it is.  It’s not a question of how something evolved but rather, how could anything evolve!  Here are seven, simple facts that I believe show why the theory of evolution is impossible.

1) ABIOGENESIS

Evolution theorizes that all biodiversity on earth is descended from a single, common ancestor.  The question then becomes, where did this common ancestor come from?  Evolutionists try to dismiss the question saying that’s not part of the theory but, for something that’s not part of the theory, they spend a lot of time obsessing over it.  I don’t believe a biology textbook exists that doesn’t contain a paragraph about the origin of life, prebiotic soup, or the failed Miller-Urey experiment. 

Once upon a time, people believed in spontaneous generation.  It’s the belief that living things could rise spontaneously from nonliving matter.  They used to think, for example, that maggots grew out of rotting meat.  Evolutionists still cling to the long discarded idea that life did indeed come from nonliving matter only now they call it abiogenesis.

Scientists have struggled for decades to create life in a lab yet still haven’t.  They don’t even have a plausible story about how it could have happened.  If all life has descended from a common ancestor, there must necessarily have been a common ancestor.  If the first living thing could not have risen from nonliving matter, then the entire rest of the theory could not have followed!

2) ORGANIZATION AND DESIGN IN NATURE

Darwin was a believer in the pseudo-science of spontaneous generation.  While most examples of the spontaneous generation of higher life forms (like maggots or mice) had been debunked by his time, he still believed that “simple” life forms, like single cells, could form spontaneously.  We know now that even the “simplest” cell is incredibly complex - far too complex to be the fortunate arrangement of pond scum.  This is why we’ve not been able to recreate life in a lab.  Imagine trying to build something as complex as the space shuttle only making it too small to see with your naked eye, and then you’ll have an idea of how complex a single cell is.

Amino acids are considered the “building blocks” of life.  When scientists found amino acids could be formed naturally, they believed they were one step closer to solving the elusive problem of abiogenesis.  However, believing amino acids could arrange themselves into a DNA molecule is like believing rocks could arrange themselves to build the pyramids.  Life is not about materials but, rather, is about organization.  All living systems are characterized by their complexity.

Think about our circulatory system.  We have a heart to pump our blood, veins and arteries to carry the blood, and there’s the blood itself.  Have you ever asked which evolved first?  I mean, what’s the use of having a heart unless there’s blood to pump and veins to carry it.  But why have blood before there’s a heart or veins?  What a pickle!  Remember too that blood has a purpose; it delivers food and oxygen to all the cells in our bodies so you also must have a respiratory system and a digestive system.  But again, why even have these other systems until there’s a circulatory system?!

Life is complex.  Even the simplest living thing is far too complex to have formed naturally.  Yet that “simple” thing didn’t have a heart or lungs or a stomach.  For that first living thing to evolve to become us, it would require entire systems (like circulatory, respiratory, etc) to arise simultaneously and function together perfectly.  I’m sorry, but that’s impossible!

3) THE STASIS OF KINDS

For evolution to occur, populations must acquire novel traits. To turn a dinosaur into a bird, it would have to acquire feathers. To turn a reptile into a mammal, it would have to acquire hair. Remember that the alleged first-living-thing didn’t have feathers or hair.  Neither did it have skin or cells, bones or blood, nor any organ of any kind.  For a molecule to turn into a man, it would require a billions of years long parade of novel features being added generation after generation. If evolution were true, new traits would have to appear in populations with a fair amount of frequency. They don't.

I like the color blue.  I also like dogs.  There are blue birds, flowers, reptiles, fish, and insects but there aren’t any blue dogs.  Could I selectively breed dogs to create a blue dog?  What if I did it for 50 years?  100 years?  1,000,000 years?  It still wouldn’t matter.  Dogs come in a lot of colors but they don’t come in new colors.  Just as the term implies, natural selection can only select from traits already present in the population.  Since there aren't blue dogs already, I could never selectively breed dogs and end up with a blue dog - not even in a million years.

Since populations need new traits to evolve, the theory has a problem.  Natural selection can’t ever add anything.  What we observe is that dogs remain dogs, birds remain birds, and people remain people.

4) GENETIC BURDEN

As DNA duplicates itself, successive generations will contain errors.  It’s an observed fact.  Most of these errors are considered “neutral” because even though they exist in the DNA, the host animal won’t appear to have any deleterious effects from them.  DNA mutations sometimes express in ways that are harmful to the host.  They can range in severity from something as mild as color-blindness to extreme conditions that are not compatible with life.  

Every once in a while, however, a mutation could add a benefit to the host.  An example of this is the blind cave fish.  In a cave where there is no light, eyes don’t offer a benefit.  In fact, while swimming around in the dark, a fish could bump into a rock and injure its eye which could lead to dangerous infections.  In this type of environment, a mutation causing the fish to be born without eyes actually gives the fish a slight advantage over seeing fish.

It is these “beneficial” mutations that evolutionists claim are the source for novel features appearing in populations.  They consider the eye-less cave fish to be a new species that have evolved from seeing fish.  I see a lot of problems with this.  First, a mutation that removes the fish’s eyes doesn’t explain how a single celled creature evolved eyes in the first place.  Also, the blind fish are less fit overall.  They might thrive in a specialized environment but they can’t compete with unmutated fish in most other environments.

The biggest problem I see with mutations driving evolution is the cumulative effect the mutations will have over many generations.  How often do “beneficial mutations” occur?  Maybe once in 100,000 mutations or maybe every 10,000 or even as little as once in every 1,000.  Remember that evolutionists claim life has been evolving for billions of years so they don’t concern themselves with how slow it might go.  They don’t see the problem.  How long could life be sustainable when DNA deteriorates thousands of times faster than it’s improving?!  When one evolutionist realized this he speculated, “Why are we not dead a hundred times over?”  I say, Why indeed!!

5) THE SCARCITY OF FOSSIL SPECIES

Have you ever heard that 99% of all the species that have ever existed are extinct?  Probably.  I’ll bet you haven’t heard that there are more living species than there are species found only in fossils!  Estimates vary but there are between 2-10 million species living (about 1.5 million have been identified and named).  There are only about 200,000 - 500,000 species only known from fossils.  

In his book, Charles Darwin speculated, “innumerable transitional forms must have existed.... [J]ust in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous.”  He was curious why every rock layer wasn’t full of such intermediate links.  He believed that since fossilization seems to happen rarely, most of the species just didn’t leave fossils.  This is usually the defense most evolutionists propose.  

We have found fossils of many living species.  Just google the term “living fossil” and see hundreds of examples for yourself.  Think about this too: we find trilobite fossils by the millions.  We’ve found hundreds of Australopithecus afarensis fossils.  We’ve also found dozens of T-rex fossils. Why do we find lots of species abundantly represented in the fossil record but no fossils of the billions of other species evolutionists claim have existed?  

What we observe is relatively few species abundantly represented in the fossil record.  Evolutionists claim there have been billions of species that have left no fossil trace.  I say there are no fossil remains because billions of other species simply never existed!

6) ORIGINAL BIOMATTER IN SUPPOSEDLY ANCIENT FOSSILS

Some years back, Dr. Mary Schweitzer – entirely by accident – discovered red blood cells in a t-rex fossil believed to be 68 million years old. At first, her discovery was met with disbelief by the majority of the scientific community. However, since her initial find, other specimens have been found. From Science News Explores we read, “Researchers from London have found hints of blood and fibrous tissue in a hodgepodge of 75-million-year-old dinosaur bones. These fossils had been poorly preserved. That now suggests residues of soft tissues may be more common in dino bones than scientists had thought.”

Think about that quote: soft tissues may be more common in dino bones than scientists had thought. What exactly do you think scientists thought about the possibility of soft tissue being found in dino bones? Obviously they thought it was impossible for soft tissue to be preserved for 65 million years! In an article about Dr. Schweitzer's find, Smithsonian.com wondered, “If particles of that one dinosaur were able to hang around for 65 million years, maybe the textbooks were wrong about fossilization.” 

Hmm.  Maybe the textbooks are right about fossilization.  It does seem totally impossible for red blood cells to remain intact for 65 million years.  Evolutionists refuse to give up their long ages so would rather search for some fantastic, natural mechanism that could preserve biomatter for millions of years.  In the meantime, the rest of us resort to the common sense solution - the bones aren’t really millions of years old!

7) THE BIBLE SAYS WE ARE CREATED

Have you ever heard a rock talk?  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.  

You see, rocks don’t talk.  Fossils don’t talk.  “Science” doesn’t talk.  Only people talk.  And when people are telling you things about the rocks, fossils, and evolution, it’s the people, not the evidence, that’s doing the talking.  Call me simple, call me dogmatic, call me any name you want but I will choose the clear meaning of the words of the Bible over the fanciful theories invented by men with corrupt minds and deceitful hearts.  

God spoke the universe into existence.  Jesus commanded the wind and waves to be still and they obeyed Him.  Even the dead hear His voice and it was He who called Lazarus out of the tomb.  So when God says He created the world in 6 days, I will believe Him!!