Continues its Destructive Course
I always approach an article like this one with a great deal of fear
and apprehension. This journal has one basic premise on which it operates,
and that is that science and faith do not and cannot conflict. If, in fact,
"God created the heavens and the earth," and if God revealed Himself to
us through His word the Bible, they have to agree. If they disagree, it
is either because we have bad science or bad theology or both. The lesson
of history is that there have been a lot of both. Most of what we try to
do in this journal is positive evidence. We do not spend a lot of time
in criticism and try to avoid anything that might be viewed as an attack
on an individual. I think most of us are very tired of yellow journalism
no matter who it comes from or who it attacks.
There are a number of individuals and programs in the world today
that operate as a defense for a particular denominational creed. These
folks have a set of beliefs that have been a part of a long tradition,
and they are attempting to use science to defend that tradition. Many of
them have good things to say, and some of the traditions being defended
are valid. The problem is that many of the claimed scientific supports
are totally erroneous, and every time such claims are made, skeptics and
the media are fed more ammunition which they can use to attack believers
and convince the world of the foolishness of Christianity.
We are not interested in debating these claims nor do we wish
to make any attacks on any individual. On the other hand, we felt it might
be useful to our readers to print a list of some of the claims being made
and give a one-sentence comment on why these claims are not true. If you
wish to know who made the claim or why it is not true in more detail, you
are welcome to contact us, but as you see things on line or in print or
hear speakers make these claims, we hope you will not use them yourself
or pass the claim on to children. We also want to emphasize this list is
not exhaustive--only the tip of the iceberg.
One of the critical phrases in this listing and in a large number of other
terms that could be added is the phrase "no evidence." It is easy to make
a claim about something. I can say "science has proven that the moon is
made out of cheese," and someone might be impressed by the claim. I can
even say "this is proven by the fact that moon rocks from Apollo 11 and
cheddar cheese have the same compressibility." I have now supported my
statement that the moon is made out of cheese by a fact, and I can document
the fact that the compressibility data is valid. Is the moon made out of
cheese? What went wrong here? The problem is that an isolated piece of
data is being interpreted without paying any attention to other data. The
density of the moon, its magnetic properties, its surface features, compressibility
data from other locations, and our understanding of how cheese is produced
do not support the assertion that the moon is made out of cheese.
Atheists have a petition they have submitted to the FCC to remove religious
programming from radio and television. No such petition exists. (See page
30 of this journal)
Scientists have found a missing day in the calendar through their space
research matching the biblical missing day. No such study has been done
nor is it possible due to alterations in the calendar (whole weeks and
days have been removed).
An international conspiracy exists to dominate the world titled "The New
World Order" run by the ACLU, Israel, Ted Turner, etc. Their target date
is May 5, 2000. That date has passed and most of the people listed are
antagonistic to each other.
The speed of light is decreasing in a half-life curved way, making all
science based on the speed of light wrong. There has been no measurable
change in the speed of light, and things like e=mc2 are
easily shown to be correct.
At the site http://www.darwindisproved.com, Darwin has been disproven This
was an April Fool's joke and is not a serious site.
The earth's magnetic field is decreasing and, if the earth were old, we
would not have any magnetic field. It is easy to prove that the earth's
field flips back and forth.
A yellow dinosaur (with a beard) was caught in Lake Erie. No evidence.
Pterodactyls fly around Papua, New Guinea. No evidence.
Japanese fisherman caught a plesiosaur. It was a rotted whale.
Drawings near Ica, Peru, show clear drawings of dinosaurs and humans living
together. These are found all over the world and are ancient drawings of
spirit creatures and humans.
Hyperbaric pressure can grow giant tomato vines 40 feet high and producing
15,000 tomatoes. Has not been done. No evidence.
Vitamin B17 cures cancer. This is based on testaments of people, not doctors.
Human and dinosaur tracks have been found together. No evidence, and it
has been admitted to be untrue by the original proponents.
The Smithsonian has 33,000 sets of human remains in the basement, many
taken while the people were still alive so they could prove their theory.
Loch Ness is so big that five billion people could drown in Loch Ness,
and there have been 11,000 sightings of the Loch Ness monster. No evidence.
Darwin's theory was the cause of the Trail of Tears when the Cherokee Indians
moved to Oklahoma. The Trail of Tears occurred in the 1830s Darwin's theory
was published in 1859.
Microchips are part of the mark of the beast. All bar codes end with two
lines which stands for 666 (the mark of the beast). First of all, all bar
codes are random depending on the numbers. Secondly, six is not two lines--that
is a three in the binary system.
Ancient Hebrew records indicate regular contact between humans and dinosaurs
like those referred to in Job 40:15. The words in both the Bible and secular
documents do not refer to animals anything like dinosaurs. Jewish scholars
recognize leviathan as a creature of the deep ocean (see Psalm 104:26)
and behemah as a large ungulate (see Genesis 1:24).
All of the denominational creationist claims in our list (and countless
others like them) have the same problem. There may be an isolated fact
that supports the claim, but abundant evidence exists that proves that
the claim is not valid. When our students are given a claim that is said
to be biblical, and when they later come to realize there is abundant evidence
that the claims are untrue, they can logically come to the conclusion that
the Bible and the whole Christian system is false.
It is vital that we think about the claims that are made by any
writer or speaker. Is evidence provided that is from multiple sources and
by people who have valid credentials in the field they are discussing?
Is the documentation checkable, or is it hearsay? Using personal testimony
of any kind is a very dubious technique because virtually nothing is able
to be verified. The number of denominational creationists is growing as
religious division increases. Every group wants its own expert on the issues
facing mankind today, and the entertainment value of that expert is weighed
far more heavily than their credibility or the soundness of their teachings.
Those of us who listen and work with young people and the issues they face
are the only ones who can help minimize the damage done by the tabloid
mentality promoters of denominational creationism.
Back to Contents Does God Exist?, MayJun01.