Thursday, May 25, 2017

T. Rex vs. 65 Million Years

In 1990, an abnormal protrusion from a cliff side in Montana led to the chance discovery of a remarkable Tyrannosaurus Rex. The find, in itself, was amazing. Although it was mostly fossilized, a good portion of this specimen remained as authentic "fresh" dinosaur bones! It was a dinosaur hunter's dream as they quickly worked to excavate the specimen from the site for further analysis and preservation.

The excavation of the site was difficult, but the team found it worth it. Unfortunately, in order to transport the specimen, they had to saw a leg bone in two in order to get it out of the site in any sort of condition at all. At the end of the project, the stunning Tyrannosaurus Rex remains would land at Montana State University under the care of the paleontologist, Dr. Mary Schweitzer. While in the lab, a mistake was made and the rest is history.

A portion of the bone was accidentally dipped in an acid bath. This is not something that is typically done with dinosaur bones because it is assumed nothing worthwhile could be discovered by doing so. It is assumed hat the bones are so old that any sort of biological information that could be gathered from the bones would be long gone. But that was not the case. Blood vessels were discovered inside of the bone as a result of the blunder. What was more, stretchy tissue, from inside the dinosaurs bone, was also uncovered.

You would think that this discovery would be pure joy for the person who made the discovery, but the find was a mixture of emotions. It was, in part, an occasion for celebration. Nobody had discovered soft tissue within dinosaur bones before. On the other hand, releasing the news would be followed by immediate scrutiny. Dr. Mary Schweitzer, as a result, hesitated to release her findings.

You see, Mary Schweitzer is a Christian. No, she's not a young earth creationist, but she was well aware of what her findings could suggest. In fact, she was not so concerned about what they could suggest, but what the mainstream scientific community might think of her, if she revealed her findings to the world. They would think she only believed the world was no more than 10,000 years old.

Instead of embracing this stigma, she went back to the lab to confirm her findings. They ran several more tests to determine if what they found truly were blood vessels and soft tissue. Several alternative theories were developed, but in the end the conclusion was obvious. She had discovered blood vessels and soft tissue in dinosaur bones that she thought were 65 million years old.

Mainstream logic said this was impossible. When she revealed her findings to the world, she was met with scrutiny and accusations that she had some sort of crazy, young earth agenda. She had nothing of the sort. She still maintained that she rejected the young earth model of creation and proposed that the scientific community needed to develop a new theory to explain how such fresh samples of red blood cells and soft tissue could be preserved for, what was assumed to be, tens of millions of years. Because of her adamant denial of being a young earth creationist and the new explanations for the preservation of the organic material within specimen, Mary Schweitzer's reputation was allowed to maintain good standing with the scientific community.

Since this find, it has been discovered that other dinosaur bones retained organic material that should have been long gone according to conventional wisdom.

Creationist groups have approached Mary Schweitzer's boss, world renowned paleontologist Jack Horner, to ask for a carbon 14 test on the bone. Horner refused, even after being offered up to $20,000 to cover any inconvenient expenses. Horner's response was very telling. He refuses to allow testing because of the "spin" creationists might put on the results. What spin could he possibly be referring to?

If science is an unbiased pursuit of truth, why was Mary Schweitzer the least bit afraid of what her findings might suggest? Why would Dr. Jack Horner refuse a $20,000 donation to carbon date a dinosaur bone? Why does the mainstream scientific community maintain the belief that T. Rex bones are over 65 million years old? Why should such findings paralyze the scientist from seeking the truth?

Humanism vs. Christianity

There has been a battle for quite some time between the Christian church and Humanism. Humanism is the idea that mankind is inherently good and is of supreme importance. The Christian church teaches that mankind is a fallen creation, born into wickedness, inheriting a sin nature, and directly responsible for all of the evil in the world. Christians believe that God is of supreme importance. And yet, the two beliefs can find common ground, if they are willing to look.

A message of the Christian church is that mankind is created in the image of God. This fact is made clear from the first chapters of Genesis, which is the first book in the Bible. From the beginning, mankind was set aside for some really good things. God created people to be an earthly representation of his goodness. Yes, mankind betrayed the trust of God and fell from grace, but we are fortunate in the New Testament to have been restored to the mercy and grace of God.

In Ephesians, the Apostle Paul refers to us as "God's workmanship" that were "created to do good works that He prepared for us to do in advance" (Ephesians 2:10). This message is not saying that mankind is inherently good, but it is saying that believers in Jesus have been regenerated in their nature to do good things that God has prepared for them to do. Furthermore, Philippians states that we ought to set our minds on all things that are good and wonderful. Fill your mind with the goodness of God and reflect on all He has done. The Christian mind, as it is stated in Romans, is supposed to be that of a renewed nature, no longer focusing on wickedness, but moving forward in righteousness. God is good and He has placed the Holy Spirit within us to lead us in all righteousness. Ladies and gentleman, here is the common ground between believers and humanists.

Humanists start with the premise that mankind is good. I remember listening to a humanist by the name of Alex Epstein talking about how mankind is actually good for planet earth. He also taught that mankind's first priority should be the well-being of the human race; that we should not compromise technology for the sake of saving Mother Earth and other species of animals. Through his lecture, it was clear that he believes that mankind is unique in the world of earth's creatures.

Granted, humanism does not necessarily have a religious code like Christianity. Christianity teaches that certain human behaviors are the result of our sin nature and can be avoided. The difference is immense, but is it possible that mankind's quest to be good is ground upon which Christians and humanists stand?

Ultimately, the goal of Christians is to lead people into a relationship with Jesus Christ. Standing on common ground, we can work towards theological discussions. Asking the questions, such as "Why are humans good?" and "Why were they created to rule over the animals?" can bring deeper thought and understanding to those who believe in the goodness of mankind.

Thursday, May 18, 2017

The Bible and Science: Part 3

You have heard the argument that you can not prove God's existence through science. Skeptics of the supernatural will suggest that this is proof that there can be no God. If you have been following my blog posts, you will immediately recognize the flawed logic in this way of thinking as the scientific method cannot be applied to the God of the Bible. God is not a part of the creation; He is the creator.

Mainstream science teaches that if we cannot use the scientific method, the matter in question cannot be scientific. And if it is not scientific, it cannot be real. First, God is scientific by a traditional definition, but not by contemporary teachings. Second, although God is not subject to the scientific method, His creation is subject to the laws of nature. Thus, it is possible to measure the variables within nature to determine if they could have happened through chance.

In my book, 10 Irrefutable Proofs of Creation, I list ten scientific truths that can only be explained through design. For instance, if matter cannot be created or destroyed through natural processes, where did matter come from? If all material things move towards disorder, how could anything orderly exist? Is the universe necessary for mankind to exist or is mankind necessary for the universe to exist? These are just a few of the topics that we need to consider when wrestling with the existence of God.

These are fascinating questions that the secular scientists cannot answer. They undermine the intelligence of the Christian; however, it is the Christian that has the answers to some of life's most challenging questions. Therefore, it is intellectually dishonest to conclude that someone who believes in God is not intelligent. The brilliance of the theistic scholars and scientists allows them to debate the most convincing secular scientists without hesitation. The result is the magnificence of our Creator God on display.

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

The Bible and Science: Part 2

In my book, The World That Then Was, I discuss various creation models that have been held by Christians in the past. The fascinating part about the discussion is that both faith-based and science-based arguments must be considered. Ultimately, the question becomes, "Should we look at the Bible through the lens of science?" or "Should we look at science through the lens of the Bible?"

There are ministries that attempt to answer these questions. Those who think that we should see the Bible through the lens of science will say that we need to look at the Book of Nature, that God has provided us, in order to understand the passages. When they refer to the "Book of Nature" what they are really referring to is the mainstream way of interpreting scientific evidence. Unfortunately, the mainstream approach has been high-jacked by interpretations that are in direct contradiction to clear teachings in the Bible.

When we look at science through the lens of the Bible, we do not disregard scientific evidence. In fact, literalists do more justice to the scientific evidence than those who view the Bible through the lens of science. For instance, when we look at creationism, the idea that God created the world as the Bible describes, there are two main schools of thought. The first would be the young earth creationists (YECs). YECs believe that the world was created 6,000 years ago. The second would be the old earth creationists (OECs) which would be a group that thinks the world is significantly older, if not the same age as mainstream science.

Let's take a look at the Gap Theory. People, who believe in the Gap Theory, generally accept the idea that the world is billions of years old. They do so because mainstream science says the earth is really old, but also because they believe that there is a gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. In Genesis 1:1, they claim that was the initial creation, in which God created a world before Adam and Eve, a time when Satan fell. They believe that science provides sufficient evidence that the world is much older than what YECs claim it to be. The problem they have is that science would not provide any evidence that there were angels that lived on earth before humans were created.

Young Earth Creationists don't try to harmonize their account with mainstream science. Thus, they don't make such trivial errors in their logic. YECs look at the evidence and conclude that, in light of what the Bible says, the mainstream scientific understanding of the evidence is incorrect. They provide evidence in nature that supports the idea that the earth is significantly younger than what mainstream science claims.

The majority of people, who believe in evolution, believe that humans evolved from apes because of science class and such teachings in our culture. However, the institutional understanding of this evidence is that mankind DID NOT evolve from apes, but from an ape-like creature. The institutional understanding is that mankind and apes have a common ancestor, not that one evolved from the other. Nonetheless, it is the humans evolving from apes narrative that has kept the theory of evolution alive. The evidence is far more complicated than an oversimplified diagram that portrays chimps progressively evolving into humans. Would as many people buy into evolution if they truly analyzed the evidence? It is doubtful. But because the narrative is powerful, the ignorance of the masses is allowed and the institution goes unquestioned.

Biblical creationists do the best that they can to account for all of the scientific evidence. They take the Bible seriously and use science to explain God's good design.

When Does God Perform Miracles?

I believe in miracles. Most people that believe in God, at least the Christian God, also believe in miracles. Yet, many people will argue against God's existence because miracles are not frequently observed in their own experiences. For atheists, this is a foothold for them to stand firmly in their lack of belief in God. Ironically, if they saw a miracle, it is likely they still would not believe. Such was the case in the days that the Son of God came down to rescue mankind.

The reasoning against miracles is that they must be validated. Non-believers think that if God were real, miracles ought to be verifiable through scientific investigation. This is ironic, because the very thing that makes a miracle a miracle is that it defies the laws of nature. In other words, there are no testable variables through which you can recreate a miracle. If such variables were at our disposal, we could recreate miracles at our own whim. But, if we could recreate the miracle, we would be verifying that it was not be a miracle, but some sort of consequential fluke!

Miracles, in the Biblical sense, are derived from God exercising His authority over the created universe. These miracles can be big and cosmic in scope or small and deeply personal. But He only performs a miracle when it is necessary to fulfill a specific purpose according to His will. Sometimes, He even performs miracles through well timed orchestrated events that would otherwise appear to be coincidental. But if God granted everyone a miracle when they ask for one, it would diminish His authority by handing it over to mortals. When God performs miracles it is according to His timing and His purposes.

Mocking believers when miracles do not occur is not really an indictment against God, but an admission of ignorance on behalf of the one who is mocking. If everything was dictated through miraculous occurrence, why even create a universe full of laws? The laws of nature were created by God and govern the world by God's decree. God defies nature when He wants to make His presence known to the witnesses who are blessed enough to behold His glory.

Wednesday, May 10, 2017

T. Rex Does Not Have Feathers

I remember sitting and watching Jurassic Park for the first time at the movie theater. It was an incredible experience with life-like dinosaurs, intense chase sequences, and the cruel indulgence of one's desire to see real-life dinosaurs confined in a zoo. It stood as my favorite movie for a good number of years. At the closing of the movie, right before the end credits, the protagonists sat on a helicopter, fleeing from the dinosaur infested island, and the main character peered out the window to see what appeared to be a flock of storks flying alongside them. It was symbolic of the beauty of evolution. Dinosaurs had their chance and went extinct; then, came birds (as Dr. Grant explained earlier in the movie), which evolved from dinosaurs.

I do not have access to all of the information and I do not know how to read fossils the way that so-called experts can, but if there is one thing I can conclude about this story, it's this: Tyrannosaurus Rex did not have feathers. I would contest that none of the dinosaurs had feathers. I do not believe in evolution. Nonetheless, I am willing to allow for the possibility that some of these creatures had feathers if that is where the evidence leads. But, Tyrannosaurus Rex did not have feathers.

I did a quick Google search on "Did Tyrannosaurus Rex have feathers?" and the first statement that pops up is "Probably so" ( From "probably so" stems hordes of artistic depictions of T. Rex covered in feathers, which I must say were very reminiscent of the Snow Beast from Scooby Doo. I don't have a problem with artistic depictions of fictional possibilities, but people have completely bought into the idea that T. Rex and all other theropods had feathers. The problem is that there is no evidence to support this claim!

An attempt to provide evidence posits that "ancestors" of Tyrannosaurus Rex had feathers. Immediately, the question ought to be, did T. Rex evolve from these other species that supposedly had feathers? Instead of humoring critical thinkers with such obvious questions, evolutionary scientists immediately jump to the conclusions and make remarkably unscientific statements.  "While there is no direct evidence for Tyrannosaurus rex having had feathers, many scientists now consider it likely that T. rex had feathers on at least parts of its body" ( As a creationist, you must understand that statements like this are infuriating to me. It's akin to someone asking me for evidence that God exists and my answer being, "My evidence that God exists is that we're here. And we wouldn't be here if he didn't exist."

Evidence that Tyrannosaurus Rex had feathers would have to come directly from Tyrannosaurus Rex fossils, bones, or skin samples. The reality is that there is no evidence that any dinosaur evolved into a bird. Many of the supposed transitional creatures ended up being 0% reptile and 100% bird. Some creatures that were not considered to be birds had proto-feathers, which means that there was a fuzzy substance on the fossil that could have been a prehistoric version of feathers. This idea, however, was debunked by evolutionary scientists and creationists alike. ( 

Feathers are linked to fossils by pure speculation. Many of the science books for kids show pictures of dinosaurs and other species with feathers, simply because evolutionists believe they evolved into birds. Evolutionary scientists have committed their hearts to this belief, and it has led to an inaccurate depiction of history. If it is pure speculation, it should be noted as such. But, it should not be considered a fact. Science is supposed to be the pursuit of truth, and a representation of facts. Science is not supposed to construct well-crafted narratives despite contradictory evidence. The narratives make great kids stories, but the science fails to remain science. The story becomes a mere fairy tale. 

Can we begin to tell the story based on real history through scientific findings? Can we stop claiming that such fairy tales are facts and start teaching our youth the truth? There is plenty of fiction on the book shelves in libraries for your entertainment. How about we remove fictional stories from our children's nonfiction books so that they might be properly educated? I believe they would enjoy the truth, even more so than the contrary.

Tuesday, May 9, 2017

Finding God in Nature

Nature bares testimony to God's existence: the abundance of stars in our solar system, which light up the night sky; the power of the sun, which brings just the right amount of heat to our planet Earth, without burning it to destruction; the water which continues to cycle, so that we always have rain for our crops, and the animals that display such creativity and unique design. It is difficult to spend time in nature without seeing the brilliance and beauty of it all. It is even more difficult to believe that it all came by accident, with no original intent; with no Creator.

Intelligent Design is a belief that this world is so well designed that it had to have a designer. The teleological argument states this idea, which brought about a whole movement. The Intelligent Design movement proposes that nature provides evidence that God exists. It does not claim that we can know who God is through our observations of nature, but advocates say that the world is so perfectly and intricately designed that a designer had to be behind the masterpiece. Others say that creation is so complex that it could not have evolved through natural processes. These propositions lead to more sophisticated arguments within the ID movement.

Intelligent design advocates do not necessarily believe in the God of the Bible. They do not agree on who is the one true God, except that which can be deduced through nature. However, nature itself does not reveal the identity of God. Nature only leads us to him. As a result, many people who believe in ID are theistic agnostics. It just so happens that many of these agnostics will buy into the notion of the Christian God because of their own personal convictions.

The Bible says that we can conclude God exists through observing nature. "But the basic reality of God is plain enough. Open your eyes and there it is! By taking a long and thoughtful look at what God has created, people have always been able to see what their eyes as such can't: eternal power, for instance, and the mystery of his divine being. So nobody has a good excuse" (Romans 1:19-20, NIRV). However, no one can know God unless he reveals himself. God is beyond his creation. It is because of this reality that God must actively reveal himself, not just through nature, but in very specific ways.

God has chosen to reveal himself in a personal way. He made himself known to his creation by talking and walking with them, by sending his Son, Jesus Christ, into this world, and by giving us the Holy Spirit. He gave us the Bible so that we can learn about him, as well as his purpose for our lives. God has taught us that he has been with us since even before we were born. God has made himself known in ways nature cannot.

Monday, May 8, 2017

Science and the Existence of God

According to Merriam Webster, "science" is a system of knowledge. It is a body of knowledge, and a way of gathering more information. If science is the way of obtaining knowledge, can we know God through science? Can we prove that he exists through the scientific method?

Modern science says that something must be detectable through human senses in order to prove its reality. In other words, all things that are real need to be measurable in some physical manner. God cannot be measured. Thus, it is concluded that He does not exist. This seems to be a reasonable conclusion, but when considering the characteristics of God, this method is not an effective approach.

The God of the Bible is transcendent. He is the Creator of all things. Unlike gods from other religions, His creation is nothing like Him. He is supernatural; therefore, He is apart from His creation. He created the universe and all that is in it, and it reflects His beauty and majesty. He is eternal and beyond anything that He has created, including other heavenly beings. As a result, we cannot measure Him the way we measure everything else in nature. Countless passages throughout the Bible proclaim how different God is from His creation.

The prophet Isaiah says, "With whom will you compare me or count my equal? To whom will you liken me that we may be compared...I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me" (Isaiah 46:5, 9).

After reading this, you might say to yourself, "So there has never been a way to prove or disprove God? How convenient." On the contrary, God has made Himself known to mankind, and I will address that in a future post.

Wednesday, May 3, 2017

God Vs. Evil

I was listening to a PBS production, known as Crash Course: Philosophy, and was dumbfounded at their ideas on to the existence of evil in the world. The specific topic was the existence of God, and it involved examining the possibilities through a philosophical framework. At first, I did not really care for the premise. However, the host assured the audience that he would be approaching the topic from the perspective of a theist, particularly that of a Jew, Christian, or Muslim. So, I listened. Before long, I was annoyed that some very basic concepts, which are clearly taught in the Bible in relation to God's nature and his existence, were left out.

The series failed to properly address how Jews and Christians deal with the reality that evil exists in the world. The host stated that God could not be ALL GOOD and ALL POWERFUL because if he were, he would not allow evil to exist in the world. He then questioned that God is ALL KNOWING. He stated that if God was all good, all knowing, and all powerful, he would stop all evil in the world. Thus, God is either not all good, or not all knowing. 

2 Peter 3:8-9 states, But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

The above passage is referring to the coming of judgment day, but God is patient with our wickedness up until that day comes. This is where Crash Course: Philosophy failed to understand the existence of God in terms of a Judeo-Christian theology. There will be a day when evil will be punished, but that day has not yet come. 

In the Garden of Eden, mankind was told that they would die if they ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. After Adam and Eve ate its fruit, they did not die immediately. Their death was gradual (which was evident in God's warning in the original Hebrew text). Why would God allow evil to enter the world when he could have snuffed it out immediately? The answer is grace. God is full of grace. He forgives our sins and allows us a chance at repentance.

When studying the nature of God, the problem of evil, and various dilemmas that plague the philosophical world (in an effort to know God) do not follow humanity's flawed logic. God is not an equation. He is dynamic and living. He has personality. He wants a relationship with those he created. And His grace is overwhelming.