Archive for category Science and evolution

A Darwinian fish

The Darwinian fish Photo by Simon Peter Sutherland

The Darwinian fish
Photo by Simon Peter Sutherland

Recently I was in a certain place looking at a certain parked car, it was red and quite bright. On the boot I noticed a sign, it read “Darwin”.

The name itself was encased within a fish, a long established historical Christian symbol.

Usually, the name of our Lord “Jesus” can be found within the centre of the symbol, but this chunk of folly is clear demonstration of how Darwin is being used as a weapon against Him and His people.

But it is a pretty blunt weapon, I might add.

The name of Jesus is the highest name on earth. The Jesus of the four Gospels is the center of Christianity and indeed, the entire Bible. It is for this reason why the inner nature of man, does attack and misuse His name. Repeatedly I might add.

We hear Jesus’ name blasphemed all over this world, from television, on the street, and almost everywhere that people gather. Strange isn’t it, that no one hears the names of central figures in other religions used in such a way?

Jesus is a friend of sinners and Judas Iscariot is said to have been His friend. Yet Judas was a materialist and could not see the Truth, but only material things. These material signs are just one of many visual demonstrations of how Christianity is being attacked and one can buy them pretty much anywhere. The coins have been cast and the Judas’ of this world are betraying the very one who died for them, and just like Judas, they betray Him for materialism and  financial gain.

Darwin’s ideas are not a great problem to me. I understand the position he held and view much of it as theory based upon certain observable facts. I don’t think or see his ideas as compatible with Christianity or the Bible, but I acknowledge that some do not see things that way. However, Darwin’s 19th century position is one side of the coin, the modern view or interpretation of Darwin’s ideas is another side or thing altogether, it is extreme to say the least. One could wonder if they are even of the same coin? The political and so-called ‘scientific’ movement which is certainly using Darwin’s ideas to push religion out of the state, is one, I think, that was established some time ago with distinct design and manipulation toward Christianity. Moses was indeed a big problem to them and he still is.

Richard Dawkins is one of the 20th and possibly 21st centuries most popular spokespersons of evolution theory and  probably the person on whom the dice has fallen. But there are other people beside him, many more are attempting to arise. Thus, there is a great deal more going on with all of this evolutionary science than meets the eye.

The “Darwin” fish sticker is somewhat extreme in my view. It is immature, disrespectful and directed at Christianity. Which when it is all said and done, shows how deluded the ‘Theistic evolutionists’ really are. By embracing evolution as compatible with the Bible, is not embracing God’s way of doing things, but an opposite system.

So, Atheist readers, permit me to close with a little rhetorical offering, for your worldview is fine with me, just as long as you don’t bore me with you fairy tales. If you want to deny the Truth of why we are here and why we were born, then so be it. If you are content to have Darwin as your savior, the deliverer who has redeemed you from religion and set you free and taken you further away from the promise land and into the world of sin. Well, alright for you, “each to their own” as they say. But I tell you this; Darwin is not my savior, nor my prophet and Origin of Species is not my Bible. My Bible is the Word of God and my Lord and Savior is Jesus Christ and He has redeemed me from the law of sin and death and has given me and all His people, eternal life.

I am content to follow my “sky daddy” as you say, and you are content to follow your “fish-daddy” as I say. Let us see in a million years which one has truly saved you.

As for me fellow humans, I know that God will win in the end and I will follow Jesus. For as John Newton once said; “I’m a great sinner and Christ is a great Savior“.


, , , ,

Leave a comment

“Noah” movie, a hotchpotch of hidden messages?

Noah, the Deluge and GenesisWalking into the theatre to watch the new ‘Noah’ film was one of those moments where one does not know what to expect.

Film makers always have an agenda. Even if the agenda is art, fame, money, or personal inner release concerning some issue or topic that is bursting them open at the seams, there is always a reason for making a film.

But the director and maker of this film is a new atheist. Which begs the question; why would a new atheist desire to make a movie about Noah?

I have seen a lot of ‘Biblical Epics’ over the years, some good some not good. But most of them, if not all have been set in the ‘Biblical eras’. Such did not appear to be the case with the ‘Noah’ movie. It was filmed in Southern Iceland with no attempt to make it look Babylonian or Turkish.

What struck me on the opening scenes was the films ‘Apocalyptic’ appearance. The cloths appeared more futuristic and the landscape not at all like the Biblical Sacred Geography of the Bible lands.

It soon became quite clear to me that this film was not about the Bible at all. It was not even about the Biblical story of the flood. Something else was going on.

Some scenes were not too bad, but then I noticed when Tony Hopkins appeared on screen he repeatedly mentioned the drinking of “tea”. Anthony Hopkins was of course playing a representation of ‘Methuselah’ but he was not at all like a Biblical Prophet but rather resembled some kind of witch doctor or spiritualist.

Why, I asked, would ‘Methuselah’ mention Noah as ‘drinking tea with an old man’ when there is no evidence that people drank tea in the areas inhabited by Noah. Tea drinking likely began in China yet the script made a clear point of repeating the habit. Why? A conclusion I made was that the reference to drinking tea was a covert method of disconnecting the story to the Biblical eras and giving it a more recent or futuristic setting.

What struck me about the film was that it appeared apocalyptic rather than historical and really, the topic itself was about ‘depopulation’. The popular notion which many of those who presently embrace the theory of ‘Global warming’ that ‘Man has corrupted this world and must be destroyed’. The focus was not upon the Biblical claim that God was correcting the corrupted seed which the serpent had sown. No, the focus was upon ‘saving the animals’ and getting back to ‘Eden’ without man. The animals were the innocent. Man must be destroyed even to the point of a savage and unBiblical representation of Noah as one who became like a madman, wholly intent upon killing the new born child of ‘Shem’s wife’.

The covert yet apparent topic of ‘depopulation’ became quite apparent within the film, the seeds of which the theory of overpopulation can be traced to a Darwinian origin. Darwins acceptance of Thomas Robert Malthus’ principle of population of which his proof was concerning population expansion in America. The film quite clearly represented ‘Darwinian Theory’ in a scene where ‘Noah’ was in the ark after the floods came and he told the story of Creation which in this case was little more than a basic representation of the big bang. The scenes quite swiftly progressed to show a mass of water and sea creatures, one of which crawls out of the water and onto dry land, soon to be transformed into a reptile, then a beast, then a monkey and then ‘Adam and Eve’. The scene was little more than a representation of the often misinformed view of ‘Theistic evolution’.

What could have been rather good was the resurrected inclusion of Tubul Cain, an obscure Biblical character as mentioned in Genesis 4: 22. The Mosaic narrative says that Tubal-Cain was “an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron”.

The Jewish historian Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews 1. 2. 2 affirms this and wrote “Tubal…exceeded all men in strength, and was very expert and famous in martial performances”. He also states that he “first of all invented the art of making brass”.

Concerning the historical references to the ancient use of Iron, written history itself disagrees with modern scientific claims concerning the dating of the iron age and even though the character of Noah was not represented Biblically in the film, outside of the English accent and appearance, Tubel-Cain appears quite accurate?

It cannot be merely argued that the film made Biblical mistakes, but more choices of either interpretation or the so-called ‘artistic license’. Such licences were extreme. Such was the case concerning the violence of Noah and his family when the flood waters came and the great springs of the deep burst forth (Genesis 7: 11) and people tried to get on the ark. Noah and his sons were depicted as killing them. This is a distinct misrepresentation. But the claim that people attempted to get on the ark can be traced historically to the Talmud, where the Babylonian version claims “the people came to the ark and clung to it, and cried to Noah for help, but he answered them: “For a hundred and twenty years I entreated ye to follow my words; alas, tis now too late” (The Talmud. Translated by Polano. Part first. Page 25. London)

Thus, it seems that in some ways the writers did some research into the ark, the written texts and so forth, yet they seemed to mingle these things with other ideas. Such things as the representation of the ‘fallen angels’ I thought was pathetic. The Deist representation of God, always named “The creator” is inconsistent with the Noahic story.

Towards the end of the film when the ark had landed, it seems that the film-maker depicted the vessel as broken in two. This, is likely to be based upon the eyewitness claim of George Hagopian who claimed that when he was a boy he was taken to view Noah’s ark on Ararat around the years between 1900-1905. He stated that he saw the ark and went onto it and it was split in two. This, among a good number of reliable historical eye witness accounts that range from Josephus to Marco Polo, give us many indications and evidences concerning the historical whereabouts of the ark. Evidences it seems, the film-maker is aware of?

Thus, in our modern age where some people consider the Bible unreliable, those who believe that Noah’s ark and Biblical Creation are historical facts are sometimes labelled as ‘fanatics’ or ‘uneducated’ or ‘morons’. These claims are untrue. The word ‘uneducated’ should be replaced in many cases with ‘unpersuaded’. For, such claims are often based upon disinformation and misinformation.

Major facts which divide those two groups are matters of faith and facts on both sides. The Darwinian’s and uniformitarians, who must deny the historical reality of Noah’s flood in order for their ‘uniformitarian assumption’ to work, must, if they are sold out to their atheistic world-view play the event down. The event of the flood would disprove their ‘unformitarian assumption’ that the present is the key to the past. For, the implications of a worldwide flood, would be that it had affects concerning the mutations of the earth and the earth’s crust. If there was a worldwide flood, then the fact that 71% of the earth’s surface is water, must be played down by new atheist scientists as being unrelated to a worldwide flood, but the product of highly speculative theories. Thus, when their body of scientists are set up and declare their finds as ‘fact’ then those sheep who follow them are in fact, little more than scientific faith-heads who put their trust in interpretations of science and ignore the historical texts. Or merely label them as unscientific myths for deluded religious morons.

The facts remain that the story of a worldwide flood is highly documented throughout history, geology and archaeology and whether or not a person believes those claims I have made there, is really a matter of faith in objective argument.

The question is; who are you going to put your trust in? Science or scientists? Arguments or Truth? Written proofs or the claims made about them? Darwin or God? Because, as Bob Dylan rightly put it, “You’ve gotta serves somebody. It may be the devil or it may be the Lord but you’ve got to serve somebody”.

The God of the Bible will not take second place. For the Truth, as the great hymn writer put it “demands my soul, my life, my all”

In conclusion; the Noah film was not at all Biblical but a mere hotchpotch of deism and fantasy. Shame because it could have been good. What was good though is the way the film was depicted, which dissolves somewhat the children’s story like representation in other films, cartoons and books and atheist fiction and mockery. However, I thought they spoiled the film and muddled it up. But I don’t think it was intended to be Biblically based, but merely a film which used popular and central characters and events to further something else. A subliminal message of which I think relates to a predicted and futuristic mass genocide of depopulation? Where men seek justification to “annihilate” man and save the earth because according to them, man is destroying it. A wretched notion on their part, which I think should be consistently opposed.

The god of the Noah film is not the God of the Bible. He is the ideal god that the new atheists would prefer, if indeed, in their minds there were such a being, he is a deist god, and one whom, the new atheists in their wishful thinking, would rather exist, than the Biblical Creator. Science views itself as a type of god, the creator of life and this universe and it is science that will seek to give or take away life. The institution of modern science is not a friend of the earth or of people, it is merely gaining peoples confidence as a friend in the present, only to turn and rise up against them in the future. A new army is rising and a new era; science has been hijacked and will be used against us by militants and the one institution which they have presented as the peoples enemy, will be the one institution that will save us and concerning those wretch notions that some people have concerning depopulation, from the likes of Jacques Cousteau, John P. Holdren, Ted Turner, Bill Maher and many more, I think they are disgusting, for there is enough room in this world for all of us.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

1 Comment

Steven Weinberg and the scientific agenda to destroy religion

I think the world needs to wake up from its long nightmare of religious belief; and anything we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done, and may in fact be our greatest contribution to civilization” Steven Weinberg.

(Beyond belief: Science, Religion, Reason and Survival. 5 November 2006)

Bible trodden under foot  © 2014 Simon Peter Sutherland

Bible trodden under foot
© 2014 Simon Peter Sutherland

The above words, can and do display a form of scientific totalitarianism. I say this because any attempt to destroy some system of belief or choice of persons, is a denial of rights. I do not want religion to be weakened or destroyed. Many of us like religion and the things it represents and I for one am not going to be told whether or not I can live in a world that has no beliefs in providence, design or meaning.

Perhaps it is strange that Weinberg’s words are wrapped up in a claim of ‘Reason’ when it is nothing of the kind! If it were a claim to reason, he would not try to inspire people to go out into the world and weaken religion. Even Jesus in His great commission never inspired other systems of thought to be destroyed but merely left alone, that is if the hearers rejected His Truth.

I think Weinberg’s words clearly present manifestations of an organised agenda to replace ‘religion’ with some form of ‘science’ or so called science, at least the familiar science which people lay hold of ‘evolution Theory’. Using it, to replace God or Church.

I think secularism is just another word for bigotry against Christianity.

It is a historical fact that the Christian church or at least the Roman Catholic church has many enemies from the past. There is a certain branch of ‘science’ that has been at war with the Christian church since the 16th century. In that context, science is at war with religion. And as each century has passed, each generation has manifested this war in different forms.

Today we have this undercurrent movement which is covertly using Darwin’s theory to destroy the Christian church, primarily true Christians who believe the Word of God which these people tread upon. When I say true Christians I mean those who believe everything that Jesus and His Word communicate. It is they whom these so-called scientists hate.

I have no doubt whatsoever that this huge organisation (which may have no name) has an agenda to destroy Christianity. I have no doubt either that they are using every medium possible, every critical line of scholarship, archaeology, entertainment and every celebrity face they can conjure up to do this dirty work.

Evidence in their eyes is just another way of saying ‘we have proven you wrong’. But the problem is that when an agenda is presented before evidence or ‘science’ whatever that term may define, then it puts the finds of this certain ‘science’ in question? For example; when an artifact is discovered, it must be interpreted, but when three or four scholars explore the artifact, one can fine that they rarely agree on its interpretation.

But this is not the case with evolutionary scientists. They agree with each other and stand together like sheep going to be sheered. It reminds me of Nazi Germany or some other totalitarian movement which covertly gains power yet turns when it has it . It is a suspect movement to say the least, rather like a verbal war. Especially when certain establishments within ‘science’ or a scientific community are so clearly at war with religion?

A point I think that is worthy of consideration is that science is not at war with religion or the Bible, but rather it is the successors of the 19th century evolutionists through to the modern 21st century evolutionary scientists who are both openly and covertly at war with God and His book. They are the ones who are treading upon the Bible with their muddy boots and are using the dirt of the earth in their smear campaign.

However, the facts themselves prove that ‘science’ should not be at war with religion or Christianity in any way and that outside of Dawkins’ theories of the retina and so forth, life itself spells out intelligent design. Thus, the facts are on our side, but not when the facts are in the hands of modern orthodox evolutionary scientists and their hypothetical theories.

It is suspect and cultish to say the least when any organisation agrees consistently with itself and its teachers and when any person from within begins to disagree with them or progresses into theism or Creationism by seeing the evidence of God scientifically, they are excommunicated from the so-called academic or scientific community and denied the role of being a scientist, thus, the followers of these communities are preprogrammed or brainwashed against them.

But so many arguments presented, including Richard Dawkins’ retina argument, are designed, presented and researched with the aim of refuting ‘Creationism’. Which when it is all said and done, any of us could assemble the matter of fact and twist the facts according to that agenda. People begin to twist facts to suite theories and not theories to suite facts.

Thus, when an agenda is manifested and people are in the lab, what could happen when DNA is at the hands of evolutionary scientists who have set themselves up to “weaken religion”. No one can contradict them, even within the scientific community, since, I reiterate if anyone moves away from evolutionary science and sees evidence of creation, that person is told to reject that notion and if they do not, their funding is shut off and they are cast out of that establishment.

Thus, beyond the surface and public face of evolutionary science, the witnesses and facts only point to one thing; evolutionary science is not open even remotely to the concept of creation and neither does it remotely consider the possibility that Moses got it right. It is clear that they have brainwashed a generation of young and middle age people into thinking as they want them to think. They have made their creed and allegiance and if anyone rejects it, they are no longer part of that community.

The question is; do these people really believe that their fantasies of destroying Christianity will make the world a better place? That if they succeed in reducing the prominence of the Christian church, that a fundamentalist intolerant religion will not step in its place and reap the rewards?

Do they really believe that men in their depraved hearts will walk hand in hand in peace? If so, then they are the ones guilty of believing in fairy tales.

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Be aware of the Dolwyddelan Dragon

Dolwyddelan Church © 2013 Simon Peter Sutherland

Dolwyddelan Church © 2013 Simon Peter Sutherland

In Wales recently, at the tiny and beautiful village of Dolwyddelan, Gwynedd, I, my wife and sons had been travelling through the Welsh mountains and stopped at the ancient village. This village is stunningly located in those glorious Welsh mountains and even has its own Welsh Calvinistic-Methodist Chapel and also a delightful 500 or so year old Church.While visiting this ancient building known as St Gwyddelan’s Church, I picked up an old legend about a Dragon. I love those old legends.The story goes that a Dragon came up out of the sea and made its way up the river arriving at the village of Dolwyddelan. Apparently the Dragon was so powerful that as it swooped through the valley, diving into the waters it caused a number of floods in the village.The locals knew they needed to do something about the creature but did not want to harm it and decided to lure the beast into the mountains so it could live its days out there. It did so and no harm came to the village again.

Obviously not all legends are true, but we have similar examples of stories like this where people lured Dragons into caves, even amongst the ancient writings of Marco Polo.

Strange isnt it how so many ancient stories can be found throughout the world about people coming up against Dragons and large flying creatures. Yet today, particularly amongst modern evolutionary scientists, many people appear to be under the impression that the discoveries of Dinosaurs are a modern thing, yet the writings of the ancients clearly suggest otherwise.

Calvinistic Methodist Church at Dolwyddelan © 2013 Simon Peter Sutherland

Calvinistic Methodist Chapel at Dolwyddelan © 2013 Simon Peter Sutherland

The obvious and clear problem when reviewing these ancient legends is that they never use the word ‘Dinosaur’. The answer to this is of course that the word ‘Dinosaur’ had not been invented at the time of the event and the compositions. The word ‘Dinosaur’ or “Dinosauria” was not used to describe the creatures until 1842 when the Lancaster born Sir Richard Owen formally named them. People prior to this time referred to ‘Dinosaurs’ as Dragons, Winged Serpents, Reptiles and so forth. Which is all the word Dinosauria means, terrible reptile or lizzard.We find clear examples of Dinosaurs (Dragons) in ancient writings ranging from the likes of Josephus, the Romans, the Apostle John, Marco Polo and even the likes of ancient myths such as ‘George and the Dragon’.

There is even an ancient tomb in Carlisle Cathedral with the image of a Dinosaur (Dragon) on there.

Strange is it not that so many people today think that the discoveries of Dinosaurs is a modern thing, as though modern evolutionary scientists own ‘Dinosaurs’.

Clearly the ancients would not agree, but would ask them, ‘what took you so long, we knew about these creatures thousands of years ago’.

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Archaeology: A secret history – BBC four

Simon Peter SutherlandWell, here we go again. More subtle anti-Creationist, anti-Biblical, evolutionary propaganda from the prejudice BBC.

It seems that every week, more or less, the BBC attempt to brainwash us Brits with more fairy tales about ‘Macro-Eveolution’ in the on going quest to corrupt the foundations of true Christianity in her fundamental reading of the Bible and make all religions equal in error and in truth?

As is said: If Britain does it first, the rest of the world might follow?

The latest quest by the BBC is entitled “Archaeology: A secret history” in which Dr Richard Miles offers us a version of history and archaeology which as it is said, began to prove Biblical truth starting in the 4th century AD with the founder of archaeology, Helena, the 1st Christian Archaeologist. The history soon moves forwards and the quest to prove the Bible got archaeologists into dangerous waters?

Permit me to say as one who has studied these matters, knows the Biblical narrative in its original languages and visited some lands of the Bible, that when the Archeology of the Bible lands is handled correctly, there is no contradition whatsoever between Archaeology and the Biblical narrative. That is unless the evindence is in the hands of the BBC or Israel Finkelstein, Bart Erhman or some other polemic or church conspiracy theorist.

It never ceases to amaze me of how prejudice and narrow minded documentaries can progress, as they work their angled agendas against something by opening rather fairly and then move rather swiftly on to debunking their opponent with a mere majority system of thought. Facts have little to do with it. Opinion more like. Majority opinion.

It so-often starts with creation does it not? With Genesis and so forth. Suddenly the archaeology slips on its own vomit and then dumps on its own dinner by confusing ‘Archaeology’ with ‘Geology’. Which are not the same thing. Similar though they are.

It seems that the misleading title “Archaeology” has now stepped onto new territory and entered into the geological field. A geological field which is often stated as a fact, but is in reality little more than a philosophy. Thats right, a philosophy. An idea. A theory. Not modern at all, but an 18th century philosophy called ‘Uniformitarianism’. In other worlds, an assumption which is believed to have started with James Huttton (1726-1797) and made popular by Darwins apostle, Charles Lyell (1797-1875). Lyells publication “Principles of Geology” (1830) was read by Darwin and thus, the rest is history.

Suddenly the Bible, ancient history, Judaism and so-forth are now proven wrong because a philosophical theory takes centre stage? For Darwinians, Creationism (their enemy) has been the support act while ‘Uniformitarianism’ is the headliner, though under a deceptive new name.

For those who are still in evolutionary ignorance and do not know, permit me to mention what Uniformitarianism is. Uniformitrianism is a philosophical concept which evolutionary science uses to claim that what the earth is doing now it has always done. That is merely an idea, a philosophy, not a fact.

The idea of Uniformitrianism is that the earth was shaped by a series of sudden and violent events is an idea which is not the only conclusion to the evidences we see before us. But it is the more common notion which people tend to follow because ‘Science’ says so. The rest of the world must bow the knee because ‘Science’ says it is a fact. The earth is billions of years old? Those who think otherwise are either uneducated or bias due to religious persuasion and fundamentalism. Wishful thinking.

It seems to me that the only facts which present themselves with documentaries such as “Archaeology: A secret history” and those commonly broadcast by the BCC these days is that they are prejudice towards the Bible and Biblical archaeology are basically uniformitarian in their concepts and believe that the present is the key to the past. How so?

It is for this very reason why the BBC have in the past laid the foundation-stone in this anti-Biblical quest by attacking the historical claims of a worldwide flood. A flood not only written about in Genesis and compiled in the Bible, but written about in Africa, Babylon, China, India, Australia, America, North America, South America and even Greece. These historical accounts cannot be ignored, neither are they going to go away. And the catastrophic consequences of the flood would mean that the present cannot be the key to the past, since the earth’s crust would have changed when the flood resided.

But clearly Dr Richard Miles has concluded otherwise and we sheeple must bow the knee to what the scholars say, because scholarship is always right, right?

Clearly by his employment of ‘Neanderthal’ in his documentary thesis, Dr Miles has concluded that Genus Homo (Neanderthal) is evidence of a common ancestor rather than a common designer. That an ancient and incomplete set of bones which have been reconstructed accordingly is evidence for macro-eveolution?

I think not. If ‘Neanderthal’ is evidence for macro-evolution then I am Jack Benny reborn.

But what does it matter what I think, I’m just some deluded religious nut case with an over literal reading and knowledge of history. I clearly have some issues with the way the world is these days. But if believing that history is history and that there was indeed an ancient flood makes me a fundamentalist nut case, then I am indeed content to be a fundamentalist nutter. But I’ll be damned before I believe in some fairy tale theories about some ancient extinct creatures being our common ancestors. And I would rather lick the dirt than believe the present is the key to understanding the past.

Thus, when history is what we know and have in writing by ancient eye witnesses, with evidence to back them up, are we really going to deny written history and vast amounts of geological evidences because of Charles Lyell’s 19th century agenda to ‘Free science from Moses?’. Are we really going to take the word of orthodox evolutionary scientists without thinking for ourselves?

I don’t know about you folks but I have never believed in fairy tales and I am not into scientific totalitarianism. Neither am I willing to put my trust in evolutionary scientists who present theories as fact, and philosophies as geology when I know they are not speaking the truth.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Jesus is “Peace on earth, goodwill toward men” Christmas 2012

“Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace, goodwill toward men”Luke 2: 14

Christmas starts with Christ St Ann's Church, ManchesterFor some unknown reason to me, the so-called nativity texts of the gospels are, for the most part only explored at Christmas.

So often in England we hear the passages from Matthew and Luke read out during Christmas services, followed by traditional carols and verses from the prophet Isaiah. All very well and good but somehow I feel that much of this tradition is little more than going through the motions, a tradition rather than an understanding? A reading rather than a knowing.

It feels to me that when read in most churches in England at this time of the year, the texts of Matthew and Luke appear to lack reality and historic value. People appear to look at them as though they are just ancient myths and stories based upon some real historical events. It has become a culture to believe the Biblical narratives have been retold and edited to a persuasion by ancient spin doctors. Grand assumptions have been made by modern scholars and people have bought into it through ignorance and lack of knowledge.

The original gospels were never written to be told as fairytales or myths but actual eye witness accounts.

But still, the claims of some modern scholars dominate the minds of many. Many people seem to believe the claims, just because scholars make them.

Yet anyone who can think for themselves know that scholarship so often takes its position and defends it regardless of evidence or contrasting opinion.

I do not respectfully disagree with the many claims of modern critical scholarship which has infiltrated the church, I disagree full stop, with no respect whatsoever and I do so not without historical evidence.

Today amongst many, the knowledge of the historical reality of the gospels has become a lost goldmine of which the location is known only by the few.

I often sit within whichever church I choose to attend at Christmas listening to Christmas services, enjoying the carols and the splendour of the season, followed by a walk through the town with all its glittering lights and nativity scenes.

I am glad that the enemies of Christianity have failed in their attempts to remove the nativity scenes from our streets, even if they have corrupted much of the so-called Christian church.

But still, this year I have been pleased to see churches packed with people and an array of carol singers. I have at times, felt the Christmas spirit and the text from Luke has rung so often within my ears, “on earth peace, goodwill toward men”.

But there is no peace on earth, I say to myself. The earth is filled with horror, evil, wickedness and violence which at times is hard for the human to cope with.

This week I have read of the horrors of children murdered in a school in America. I read of wars, theft, lies, corruption, I see evil films being played on Television, filled with bloodshed and human beings slaughtering one another, treating humans like a butcher treats animals and all in the name of entertainment. I often ask the question, ‘are people stupid or what?’ do people not see that what the eyes take in, the mind conceives and what the mind conceives, the flesh gives birth to?

It is a wicked world we live in.

I see new atheists seeking to destroy Christianity with falsehood, lies, and delusions. I see corrupted sciences attempting to take God out of His creation and claiming the earth and humans are a product of chance. I hear people tell me that evolution is a fact, yet when I refute the theory I am insulted like a child by a bully in a playground. Yet in reality, the theory of evolution cannot be seen without embracing Charles Lyells “principles of geology” and philosophy that the present is key to the past. Even Darwin confessed this in chapter 9 of his famous book. It is for this very reason that modern evolutionists deny the flood, because if the flood is proven, it will disprove the theory of evolution.

I see modern evolutionists ignoring and rejecting the evidence of the ancient flood, which changed the face of the planet. I see them bombarding the media and making a culture out of believing that man evolved from ancestral creatures, so much so that people like myself who think critically and for themselves are bullied and labelled as uneducated, ignorant and deluded, just because I do not accept the word and authority of evolutionary scientists.

I hear of wars, rumours of wars, I see Israel in turmoil, I see Egypt in turmoil, I see extremist terrorist threats deep within the minds of people who are inwardly afraid. I see threat after threat and authorities seeking to silence the mouths of those who speak out openly and people cry. Tears fall down the faces of human beings throughout the world.

It is not a nice world to live in today. There is no peace. It is a wicked world. A world where a man is afraid to bring children into it.

Religion has not made this world a better place and neither has science. But for all its faults, religion has far less blood on its hands than the scientific world.

Some atheist scientists and thinkers who often attack religion, make out that science is some kind of angel or authority. Yet science is no angel.

Is science not cruel to animals?
Has science not created nuclear weapons of mass destruction?
Has science not created a new wave of warfare?
Does it not now attempt to reduce man to a mere animal creature?
Has the products of science not blown unsuspecting men, women and little children to pieces?

Do I trust you science? Not me.

O indeed, the horrors of science make religion appear an amateur by comparison.

But still, the Biblical text rings clear and remains. It speaks of a pure gospel, a beauty which is not limited by the limitations of the human mind and not governed or ruled by a scientific mad age. It is a spiritual reality, a gospel of peace for those who love the Truth. A perfect saviour who in a wicked world, came down to set things right and gave His own life doing so.

A child born to die. A child, a historical human being who grew to be a man, He healed the sick, fed the poor, clothed the naked, raised the dead and took upon Himself the infirmities of us all. He did no wrong to any man, He never lied, He never sinned, He was never selfish, nor rude, He spoke only of Truth and was a doer of good works, His message was love. Yet still, the wicked hated Him, they mocked Him, they tried to trick Him, they tried to kill Him and all His people, yet still, they were unable to do so until He gave His life.

He spoke the truth to every man and woman, and those who were not of the truth, they hated Him and wanted Him dead and when that time came, they took out their hatred of God upon Him and they spat upon Him, the beat Him, the whipped Him and the set up false witnesses against Him. Not unlike the modern scholars, atheist evolutionists and critics of today. They wanted Him dead and they did it, but God had other plans.

O indeed, it is a wicked world, and when the creator is nailed to a cross by the created, we see just how wicked this world truly is. Yet God sees. God knows. God hurts.

In days of old, Genesis 6: 6 tells us that God even repented for making man. Yet He did not destroy them in the flood, but gave forth new life and He did this because man could no more cure himself of his wretched sick condition than he could cure himself of a common cold.

It is a wicked world, but if we look to the world we will not see the true meaning of Luke 2: 14, for Jesus is not of this world and He is the true meaning of the passage, “Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace, goodwill toward men”. For if we read the text in the original Greek, we see the translation should be, “on earth peace to men on whom His favour rests”.

True peace cannot be known by anyone who remains in a state of total depravity. It is those who seek the truth who find it, and it is those who love the truth and are of the truth from the beginning on whom His favour rests.

This is why there is no peace in the world, it is because those whom Christ came to save have rejected Him yet again and only those who truly know Jesus truly know peace.

As the saying goes, “no Christ, no peace” and for those who love Jesus, no evil can overcome them. As it is written in Psalm 91: 1-16

“He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty. I will say of the Lord, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust. Surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, and from the noisome pestilence. He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler. Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day; Nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday. A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee. Only with thine eyes shalt thou behold and see the reward of the wicked. Because thou hast made the Lord, which is my refuge, even the most High, thy habitation; There shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling. For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways. They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone. Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet. Because he hath set his love upon me, therefore will I deliver him: I will set him on high, because he hath known my name. He shall call upon me, and I will answer him: I will be with him in trouble; I will deliver him, and honour him. With long life will I satisfy him, and shew him my salvation.”

Christmas 2012

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

John Lennon on the theory of evolution


“I don’t believe in the evolution of fish to monkeys to men. Why aren’t monkeys changing into men now? It’s absolute garbage. It’s absolutely irrational garbage, as mad as the ones who believe the world was made only four thousand years ago, the fundamentalists. That and the monkey thing are both as insane as the other… The early men are always drawn like apes, right? Because that fits in the theory we have been living with since Darwin.”

John Lennon
Interview 1980

, , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Darwins autobiography: Further evidence that Charles Darwin was not an atheist

In his own words!

Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.

Charles Darwin
Autobiography. Page 92-93.

, , , , , , ,


Evidence that Charles Darwin was not an atheist!

In his own words, Charles Darwin did not reject belief in a god!

“It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist. … In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally (& more and more so as I grow older) but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind.”

Charles Darwin
Letter to John Fordyce, 7 May 1879

, , , , , ,


Harvard professor Marc Hauser found guilty of eight counts of scientific misconduct – can any of his findings be trusted?

Professor Marc Hauser of Harvard University who’s research into evolutionary biology and cognitive neuroscience has influenced the likes of Richard Dawkins and Christofer Hitchens has been found out.

Hauser was found guilty of eight counts of scientific misconduct last year and this year after a year leave of absence, he was due to return to Harvard University, but he resigned.

How sweet of him?

Clearly Hauser has been monkeying around.

But more recent accusations have risen against him. These accusations are part on ongoing debate.

What is clear is that the claims made by this man are in serious question, as is much evolutionary science in general.

The problem is that this case is not the only time where scientific conlusions have been shown to be fake. Piltdown man was a fraud and Nebraska man was a misake, not to mention the Neanderthal Man. And now we have one of the worlds leading evolutionary scientists proved to be a faker.

What is clear is that the scientific conclusions which have been presented and taught by Marc Hauser should be seen as unreliable dodgy claptrap.

Many scientists will no doubt argue their way out of this problem as the likes of Richard Dawkins has concerning the Piltdown man, Nebraska man and the Neanderthal Man, but they cannot ignore the fact that the theory of evolution has a problem, that problem being the fact that it has many problems.

No rock layers that have been found contain transitional forms within them. There is simply no evidence beyond highly speculative claims that are based upon evidences for the theory of evolution. It is a fallacy and a fraud that will one day be seen for what it is.

The theory of evolution is a pseudo-science which is based upon the ideas made up by a theologian who was not a trained scientist to begin with. Why then should a world science be based upon a theory made up by a theologian?

The problem I find with science is that it is a self-governing enterprise, which is something that I find suspect and in reality I would like to know why a theory which logically connects to the big bang, which cannot explain where matter came from should be taught in our schools to our children laid out as fact?

I don’t believe that evolution is a fact, it is more a re-invention of a 19th century myth which makes a lot of money and at the same time fulfills the scripture, “the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths” 2 Timothy 4: 3-4.

, , , , , , , , , , ,