2016 A.D.: Proofs that scientists willfully misguide us concerning history!
Scientists have studied God's fundamental physical principles, those that undergird His creation, and they have learned many of their secrets. They use this information to manipulate the material world in astounding ways, and so advanced are their accomplishments in these many areas that scientists have come to be nearly idolized as repositories of knowledge. Their rovers travel on mars, and we credit them. Genes are manipulated to fight cancer, and we credit them. Telecommunications, amazing electronic devices, travel by air, land, sea, and underwater are all activities abounding with their clever engineering and activities which are, in point of fact, quite impossible in their current state were it not for the amazing work of scientists. Scientists are very accomplished by human standards.... except.... not in every area.
There is a great and terrible tragedy that has come along with this emergence of science as our new 'ultimate authority.' And in fact the depth and scope of this tragedy which has been brought on by scientists far outweighs the benefits of even their most weighty achievements. They have gained great esteem by studying the works of God and imitating them, adjusting them, using them, manipulating them to create new things that please and serve our wants and needs. But they impudently deny that there even is a God, and certainly want everyone to know that it is not Yahweh, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, even as they seize upon and co-opt God's principles to gain their fame. And so great is their reputation in the estimation of the general public that when they assure the people that God is a myth, the people too often believe.
That great lie is to the shame and indeed the doom of both the scientists and the people they misguide, according to the Holy scripture, and those scriptures truly are, despite all dissenting claims, the teachings and warnings of a Creator to His created children. Those who deny God, the scriptures tell us, cannot be allowed to join Him in their intended home in Heaven when they pass from this life to the next. And so they instead are sent to the place of eternal punishment. Eternal!!! Punishment!!! In the end it is Heaven or Hell for every soul. And for those misguided by scientists (who are quite good at science but willfully and determinedly blind and quite misguided about history) there will be the most horrible of prices to pay: eternity in the place of unending punishment. The scientists will be there with those that they have misled it appears, but what consolation will that be?
So, what makes this all sadder is that there is quite a lot of pretty strong and credible evidence that the Bible is speaking the truth and science is wrong about history and wrong about the existence and omnipotence of Yahweh, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. But the number of people aware of this evidence is regrettably small. Satan's world system intentionally works to make sure that few people are told the truth, and that the truth is systematically scoffed at by all the best and most glittering and most high-profile people and educational institutions and media outlets.
Satan's strategy to quench and prevent the knowledge of the truth of God from reaching the ears of God's people is to fiercely limit its dissemination and roundly mock it from all quarters whenever and wherever people are allowed to hear it. But there truly are many proofs that strongly point to God, and they can be quickly grasped by anyone with a mind to be fair and consider them and their ramifications.
Here are a few proofs - difficult to refute and easy to substantiate - which show that history as told by the Bible actually fits the known realities infinitely better than the God defying fables hypothesized by scientists. And remember, most of actual science needs not be abandoned by any means. It is their evidence-defying construction of history...for the most part only that...that is not just wrong but spiritually deadly to more millions of people than we would ever wish to count.
So consider these following points....as if your eternal welfare depended on seeing the truth!
1) Human population:
The Bible - taken literally - makes it clear that the age of the Earth is about 6,000 years old. But...about 4,350 years ago there was a great flood from which only one family, the family of Noah ...4 men and 4 women...were saved. That seems to have occurred in about 2350 B.C.
Science in contrast tells us that man...modern man...seems to have appeared in the form of Homo Sapien Sapien about 50,000 years ago. The arrival/emergence date is always changing, but that seems to be the rough current estimate.
So which belief, Biblical or scientific, using our own humble powers of reasoning, is more likely correct? Is the present version of humanity about 50,000 years old, or are we only 6000 years old (and beyond that were we pruned back to a family of only 8 people about 4400 years ago?)
Well, estimates vary concerning how long it takes the human population to double, but it is very conservative to say that world population doubles every 150 years by observed changes of population. In recent centuries it has been doubling even more quickly. But if you take the planet's currently estimated 7 billion people and halve it every 150 years as you go back in time it fits the Biblical timeline closely. It comes to nearly the expected size at almost the perfect time for the flood of Noah in approximately 4400 B.C. to have brought human population to almost zero. You can't get too much closer actually! Even the youngest scientific estimate of the age of modern humans - it seems to be the 50,000-year figure - is, by comparison, wildly off base if you double the human population every 150 years starting with two newly evolved Homo Sapien Sapiens 50,000 years ago or begin now with halving our current population every 150 years and continue doing so as you go backwards in time.
The numbers that scientist's reckonings produce are off target to the most alarming of degrees! They are not even in the vicinity of anything that could be considered plausible.
The Biblical narrative's timeline allows for about 30 to 32 doublings every 150 years to have occurred since the great flood. The scientific narrative of a 50,000-year-old human population allows for over 300 doublings to have occurred using the 150 years figure. The accepted population growth models do not allow for that through any reasonable means. The human population would be unimaginably high if humans had dwelt upon the Earth for 50,000 years with their population doubling every 150 years. The population would have doubled about 333 times, producing a population of 2 people raised to the 333 power (subtracting perhaps 3/4 of that number to allow for those who became old and died. The surprising thing about the math of human population increase is that using these growth formulas almost half of all of the people that ever lived are alive at any given 'present' time!)
But to get a grasp on this '2 raised to the 333rd power' number just consider the following: 2 raised to only the 33rd power = more than 8.5 billion. Now raise it 30 powers more! 8.5 billion raised to the 300th power! Ludicrous! Unthinkably unrealistic! If modern humans really had first appeared 50,000 years ago (2 modern humans) and they had doubled their population 30 to 32 times between then and now, such as to arrive at Earth's present population of 7 billion people, it would have been around 1,500 years between doublings.
No species is that socially awkward and reproductively inefficient that it takes two of them 1,500 years to meet, marry and mate, and then somewhere down the line of their descendants they eventually, finally, and at long last, produce a grand total of 4 children. And can any species live on such a razor's edge of population growth for so very long? No scarlet fever, mumps, rubella, dysentery, erupting volcano, rampaging cave bear, infected cut, episode of food poisoning, dastardly murders, drought, famine or anything happens along to wipe them out during the 1,500 years it takes to go from 2 people to 4 people or 4 people to 8? It is a genuinely silly proposal that we should believe such a thing could ever have happened.
Now here's the Noah's family model: Let's say for easier math that there are only 2 and not 8 people to start with, and Noah landed on the mountain about 4350 years ago, and it is the year 2000 A.D. right now. These are very good approximate figures as you will see. So, 4350 years ago we had 2. 4200 years ago we had 4. 4050 years ago we had 8. 3900 years ago we had 16. 3750 years ago we had 32. 3600 years ago we had 64. 3450 years ago we had 128. 3300 years ago we had 256. 3150 years ago we had 512. 3000 years ago we had 1024. 2850 years ago we had 2048. 2700 years ago we had 4096. 2550 years ago we had 8192 people. 2400 years ago we had 16,384. 2250 years ago we had 32,768. 2100 years ago we had 65536 people. 1950 years ago Jesus had been crucified for about 20 years, and the doubled number would be 131,072. 1800 years ago there were 262,144 people. 1650 years ago there are 524,288 people. 1500 years ago and there are 1,048,576. 1350 years ago there were 2, 097,152 people. 1200 years ago there were 4194304 people. 1050 years ago there were 8,388,608 people. 900 years ago there were 16,777,216 people. 750 years ago there were 33,554,432 people. 600 years ago there were 67,108,864 people. 450 years ago there were 134,217, 728 people, and that's beginning to be quite a lot! 300 years ago there were 268,435,456 people. 150 years ago there were 268435456 people. Now, there would be 536,870,912 people. But we started with 2 people when really there were 6 married couples outside of Noah and his wife. So we can multiply the number times 3. So that would make 1,610,612,736. We're off by about 300 years (about 2 doublings worth) of human reproduction at this rate, but look how close it is compared to scientists' estimates!
Ask yourself this: if the scientific estimate was so close to the observed as the Biblical reckoning wouldn't scientists leap upon it quickly to use as circumstantial evidence that they must be correct? You know they would! So why not the opposite? Why won't they see the failure of their time line to produce a plausible foundation for our present human population as a solid reason to abandon the premise that humanity is 50,000 years old?
Why? Because scientists, in some strange and unadmitted way, are loathe to accept truths and evidence that point to the Bible being true. They claim to base their efforts upon logic and reason. But watch how stubbornly they turn their eyes away from all that seems to prove otherwise. It does not unsettle them to suppress or orphan evidence that the Holy scriptures speak the real truth. They have their own de-facto false religion which they protect fiercely.
2.) The great flood? A Judeo-Christian myth?
The number of countries and nations and peoples which have a 'Great Flood' tradition in their national or cultural historical traditions is a very large number! If you do an internet search of 'Great Flood Myth' or similar you will immediately see that nations far apart, and many not even culturally associated with each other, have a belief in a great world destroying flood. It's been a long time.... the details vary a little bit....but the mere fact that so very many people groups share a cultural memory of this traumatizing event is amazing. And very telling. As a data-point it says that yes, indeed there was such a flood.
3.) Dust
Scientists were once split as to whether it was safe to send a spacecraft to the moon and allow men to step out on its surface. After all, they speculated, how thick might the dust be after a billion years (or whatever age the moon must surely be?) There might be many meters of dust there.
As soon as it was seen that there were only a couple of inches of dust, the 'of course it is that way' scientific opinions and theories began to sprout up everywhere. And there is no end to the lengths they can go when assuring everyone that it is the very thing that always should have been expected.
But you know what? A couple of inches of dust isn't much to show for a few billion years of accumulation. Yet, it becomes much less surprising if the moon is only 6 thousand years old or so. And the Bible suggests that this is the rough age of the Earth.
4.) The sediment depth of the Mississippi River's delta where it empties into the Gulf of Mexico.
Have you ever read that there was testing done on the depth of the sediments deposited where the Mississippi River empties into the sea? Yes, there was. The idea was that the depth of the sediment would have much to say about how long the Mississippi River had been pouring into the ocean there.
The outcome? While it was not estimated to have been the exact age the Bible would suggest, it was nevertheless pretty darn close. And as for an age of billions or even millions of years? Nope. No way. Not even 100,000 years. 30,000 years is close to their original estimate, but it's easy to read about it online. And the world's other great river deltas seem to also suffer from the same lack of extreme ancientness.
Science, of course, knows all about how that is the very thing that we all should have expected, even though textbooks from the mid 19th century didn't seem to have these same crystal clear expectations of surprisingly thin layers of river sediment in the world's great river deltas. Once the thing that their ancient Earth theories predicted were shown to be absent, (i.e.: deltas that showed millions of years of deposits) they hustled forward with brand new theories that explained it all. It is good to be a scientist. If your long-standing theories are shown false, you can just rewrite your longstanding theories. But the Bible just keeps saying what it has always said. After all, where could it go to hide if it was proven false...proven not to be the Word of God? Copies are everywhere. It would be easy to put the original Bibles beside some hastily rewritten version and show that God seemed to be unable to state the truth of history. But luckily the Bible has not faced this problem. It says now what it has said for many centuries. And it is scientists that are always having to adjust their God defying sails. The Bible has stayed on course very well.
5.) Species: why are any big animals even left?
Humans are so predatory, men so enjoy hunting, parents are so protective of their children, that wherever men have settled in the last few centuries the large animals have been quickly brought to extinction or near extinction. California is the Grizzly State. Can you find a grizzly there today? Are there wild grizzly bears? No. Europe is much the same. Africa has some remaining large species. But it's fair to say that mankind generally eradicates large 'dangerous' species in the places where we take up residence.
Men dare each other to be braver than the next man, and killing a big frightening animal is a way to prove your courage, a way to prove your hunting prowess. So, let's consider the damage that has been done to animals...the extinction of many entire species...in only the last 4,000 to 5,000 somewhat recorded years. How could there possibly have been humans of similar character crawling all over this planet with pointy spears or (God forbid) arrows that could be launched from relative safety. And the ability to dig pits on known game trails! And snares! Poisoned spikes for them to step upon. How could any animals have survived for long? Men once did not get along so well....travel among each other so commonly... that they could readily do the right thing for nature.... perhaps agree by inter-tribal consensus to quit killing off the wooly rhino, the mastodon, the giant sloth, etc. We just kept hunting them and killing them, and one day the last one was gone for a great many amazing species.
The fact that there are still some large juicy prey animals left speaks strongly to the likelihood that men have not been hunting them for too many centuries. The fact that there is some land left that is somewhat wild and unsettled also suggests that men have not been settling for long. In the early 1600's there were few European settlers in North America. At this time, nearly all of the land is farmed, ranched, or claimed by the governments and placed off limits. That's in only about 400 years time. And we are supposed, according to scientists, to be around a 50,000 years old species at a minimum. Did we not know how to reproduce, spread out and settle for our first 45,000 years?
We are hugely impactful upon the planet. We simply could not have been doing this level of change to the planet for 50,000 years. 'No way....no how!' as they say. No chance that this organism...human kind...has been exploiting away on this planet for 50,000 relatively ungoverned unrestrained years. We leave a wide swath of destruction and change where ever we spread and settle, and that evidence is not to be seen on the scale we would expect to see it.
Scientists pretend they can explain it: we were very primitive hunter gatherers, 'sufficiency only' type guys, until only a few thousand years ago. Then we changed. We started living in a way that caused more damage to our surroundings. That is silly. Insupportable. Yet they have to try to close the gap somehow between what they say about our origins, and what everyone can see has really happened in the recent centuries for which we have actual evidence of the impact of humans on the Earth.
6.) A cell's inner structure.... way too complex to have formed by accident.
A cell, even the simplest cells so far found and described, have many internal parts. There are parts inside of cells - as we all learned in school - that are pretty much like organs inside of a human. They are called organelles usually. They serve vital functions. Cells can't survive without a great many of the types of organelles within them. They are impaired, at the least, by the absence of any type of organelle. So, since every organelle is like a tiny vitally important machine making it possible for a cell to survive, isn't it fair to say that the first cell needed its organelles just like the cells of today need theirs?
So, since it is so very complex inside of even the simplest cells, how could the first one have formed without a designer. The first cell, the very first viable cell, had to be.... well...viable! Life simply could not have begun from scratch, by accident, from self-invented cells. Cells are not simple. Some are referred to as 'simple cells', but they are not simple. They are complex little machines. The first cell absolutely positively required a designer...and a brilliant one at that. The designer of the first cell needed to be brilliant far beyond the brilliance of any human intellect. Our collective 'brain cells', i.e.: our brain, can barely conceive of the entire workings of a cell. In fact I would say that it is unlikely that even today we know every smallest detail about how a cell works. Yet even the first cell ever to appear on this planet needed to not only work, but work well, feed itself efficiently, get rid of its wastes efficiently, repair itself from incurred damages from radiation, etc., and reproduce itself well. That is far, far, far too much to ask of chance, and don't we all know that when we think about it?
Science claims that in the course of billions of years anything is possible essentially. But 'not so!' our sense of discernment assures us. Science uses this 'vastness of time' as their little hidey-hole when they are caught talking conjectural fiction. They smugly assure us, the presumably witless and un-PHD'd public, that all things are possible in 'the vastness of time.' Even theories that don't hold any water at all when scrutinized closely? Yet, such theories are all quite viable if only we will take into account 'the vastness of time.' Well, I'm sorry scientists, but you've spent about as much 'time' in 'the vastness of time' as I have: virtually zero! We both were born, blood covered and sloppy wet with no particular knowledge of what had gone on before our births, somewhere in the last 120 years. And neither you nor I can explain in specific detail how 'the vastness of time' could have produced a functional cell. There is no logic in claiming that a theory that is absurd and unworkable suddenly becomes workable and no longer absurd if you merely throw it into the metaphorical mystery cave that we refer to as the 'vastness of time'. Why have other theories not needed 'the vastness of time' to show themselves workable? Because they were not ludicrous baseless imaginings!
The 'vastness of time' is where absurd scientific theories go to hide from the light of common human logic. Always remember this: scientists have spent no more time exploring 'the vastness of time' than your neighbor the plumber. Or you yourself. No one can say that this or that might have happened in 'the vastness of time'. It's an imaginary place.
7.) Flying beetles!
Have you ever considered the absurdity of a flying beetle? We've nearly all lived where they do. Lady Bugs are a good example. They have hard shiny shell halves that work fine, have a gloriously colorful paint job, are pretty tough protective shields really. And yet, they slide cleverly off to the sides and out of the way whenever the beetle is compelled to do some flying. And amazingly, against all odds, there are fully functional wings beneath those shell halves. Now I can't quantify the power of this 'evidence' that there is a God, but if you even begin to look at the number of staggeringly complex engineering problems which must be overcome to make a viable beetle that is also a capable flyer, the odds against such a thing become quickly evident, in profusion, to a fair-minded investigative intellect. Such beetles must emerge from eggs, lay eggs or fertilize eggs, be able to live within an egg, hatch from eggs, learn flight without the benefit of parental lessons in nearly all or perhaps all cases, they must know how to launch into flight, when it is advisable to do so, they must eat, yet their weight must remain somewhat balanced so that they maintain the proper aspect as they fly, they must be able to attract a mate, mate, provide some safety for their young, they must recognize enemies without attending any sort of training, and the list honestly goes on and on.
What of the flying beetle that could land but not take off? What of the one that could take off but not land? How was it able to protect itself when it had wings but no outer shell...during those many alleged millennia as it 'evolved'? How did it escape to safety when it had the shell but no wings? How did it know how to master the requirements of flight? How did the hinge on its shell halves develop to be able to hold the shells on place firmly on the back when our bug wanted to walk, but to then rotate our of the way for flight, yet not produce so much drag that flight was made impossible? Oh my gosh, the wealth of know-how that is displayed in a flying beetle. Layers upon layers, many books worth of design innovation and consideration to make the first one fly, yet there had to be a second one so that it could have a mate. Two then...two that evolved just like each other, complementary DNA, the whole works, in the same relative place in the same continent on the same hemisphere of the planet...each with all of these astounding features that make it possible for a blocky hard-shelled beetle to be an unlikely yet successful aviator as well as ambulatory on it's well-designed legs. Those legs are good for walking, yet they know how to tuck in when it's time to take to the skies. Which scientist can truly wrap their mind around the developmental difficulties of transitioning a beetle from walker to flier? Ah, but surely in the 'fullness of time'...there it could have happened. There it could have happened. Right? No. No, truly it could not have developed itself in the fullness of time. It surely and inescapably needed a cogent designer, one familiar with the problems that would be encountered, so that solutions could be 'designed' to overcome such problems.
There are many other types of creatures that show similar brilliance of engineering design. Perhaps they all do, if we only understood the magnitude and variety of the environmental challenges that each organism is so neatly adapted to thrive in spite of.
Intelligent design is so, so very necessary to explain such excellent form and function as that we see in the creatures of nature. Nothing else suffices to explain such magnificent creatures, both great and small. We have, embedded within us all, enough discernment to just suddenly see one day that the miraculous living things around us couldn't possibly have sprung from the random and unfocused stirrings of chance natural forces acting on randomly mixed or deposited materials. When it comes to forming and then perfecting life forms, CHANCE has no desire, had no experience, had no motivation, had no eyes with which to assess his work as he went along. Chance is not a living thing. Random chance has no agenda. Chance has nothing to gain even if it did have fingers and thumbs with which to build little creatures.