Veritaphobia

Veritaphobia is the fear of truth. The Urban Dictionary provides these definitions:

1. Displaying hesitation or refusal to admit or recognize that something is true, or to accept the concept of truth itself. Usually born out of fear of offending someone or being held accountable to something constant.
2. Dismissal of the existence of absolutes.
3. Degradation of people who profess something as true or untrue.
4. Being willfully in denial. Gives rise to constant skepticism and doubt of everything.

Have you ever noticed that if you dare attempt to engage in a discussion with these people regarding real science (verifiable facts and evidence, what you can test and observe), the reality concerning Islam, the depravity of homosexuality, the verifiable validity of the Bible, the Christian religion, or the blatant stupidity of the Liberals by demonizing certain people while screaming "tolerance" for others (having different standards of acceptable behaviour for different groups of people), they suddenly "don't care" and are not interested and will immediately abandon the conversation? For some of them, their tactic is to even attack your character and demonize you.

Is it not interesting how these people will voice their own personal opinion on the subject first and then purposefully and deliberately bow out of the discussion without granting you the courtesy of respectfully listening to what you have to say? This is because these people are allodoxophobes—they have a fear of opinions, specifically those that are not their own—and alethephobes—they have a fear of hearing the truth. They are afraid of that which they do not know, and are not willing to learn about it. Classic veritaphobia.

These people are also gnosiophobes, having a fear of knowledge; sophophobes, having a fear of learning; deitiphobes, having a fear of God or a deity; and theophobes, having a fear of God or religion. Most of the stuff these people spew is hearsay; nonsense they have either heard or read from an equally ignorant and uneducated source. Rather than be corrected and learn the truth, their veritaphobia keeps them from ever having to do so or be so. They know absolutely nothing about the topic at hand, yet will argue tooth and nail against those who clearly do know something about the topic. If ignorance is bliss, these people are living in paradise.

Trying to dialogue with a person who is of the Liberal mentality can be extremely taxing and often futile. They do not have an open mind. They are not willing to learn the facts. These people are ignorant, uneducated know-nothing bigots and are fork-tongued, double-minded hypocrites. Be sure you are not casting your pearls before swine.

“Do not speak in the hearing of a fool, For he will despise the wisdom of your words.” Proverbs 23:9

We must stand up for Truth. As children of God, we have the Holy Spirit within us. He is Truth, He will guide us into Truth, and He will impart Truth to us. Whether our words are received or not, we must speak them! We must learn the truth, we must speak the truth, and we must stand for the truth!

"You will know the Truth, and the Truth will make you free." John 8:32

Homosexuality vs The Freedom of Expression

"Homophobia" is a meaningless term. It serves only to confuse and muddle the truth by attempting to silence those who speak of the dangers and perversion of homosexuality. What if every person's "identity" happened to be based upon their own personal ideology? According to modern idiotic thinking and the passing of mindless idiotic laws, if you criticize someone's ideology, you are necessarily generating "hatred" toward that person. Have we become so thin-skinned and wussified that we cannot handle someone criticizing our ideologies? What would happen if you applied this type of mindless thinking to everything? If you pay attention to the news, you can already see pedophiles and zoophiliacs applying the same fallacious nonsense that the homosexuals have used in the past. Those who believe themselves to be supporting "tolerance" are in reality actually supporting intolerance of the freedom of expression.

Someone who opposes the most foundational liberal principle, the freedom of expression (as found in America's First Amendment and Canada's Charter of Human Rights), in order to protect the sensibilities of homosexuals and other perverts like them, is a Liberal only in name. What kind of person holds two different groups of people accountable to two different standards of acceptable behaviour other than a bigot? Your left-wing Liberal is precisely that—a know-nothing bigot. Sadly, many Westerners are ignorant, unintelligent, uneducated know-nothing bigots who are only "tolerant" of the supposed "underdogs" while being intolerant of everything and everyone else. These people are fork-tongued, double-minded hypocrites.

The problem is, that Westerners suffer from an over-developed sense of the White Knight syndrome. They want to step up and defend the downtrodden, which is admirable in and of itself. The sad and unfortunate thing is that because Westerners suffer from an over-developed sense of the White Knight syndrome, they have been deliberately and purposefully manipulated emotionally by homosexuals and other perverts like them. You want ignorant, unintelligent, uneducated Westerners to support whatever depravity you are into? Make yourself appear to be the victim. You can see the same thing starting to happen with pedophiles and zoophiliacs. Westerners have been brainwashed by the use of illogical fallacious arguments that tug at their heart strings. If these ignorant, unintelligent, uneducated know-nothing leftist bigots would pick up and read some of the homosexual manifestos and such, they would see who the true oppressors actually are. When you have a less-than 2% world population telling the other 98% of the world population what they can think, say, and believe, you have a problem. That is exactly and precisely what is taking place by homosexuals and their supporters today.

Like fools, Westerners are falling in line behind them to support them and their perverse lifestyle. Even several churches are starting to abandon common sense, logic, and the Bible in order to get behind these people. They are bowing to the golden idol. Homosexuality and the left-wing Liberal's concept of "inclusion" and "tolerance" are the persecution that is coming upon the church in the Western world. Soon it will become very apparent who is and who is not a genuine Christian. Like Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who refused to bow down to the golden idol erected by Nebuchadnezzar, the genuine Christian will refuse to bow down to the homosexual and leftist agendas. Genuine Christians know the voice of God and follow Him in faithful obedience. His Word, the Bible, directs and guides their lives. The so-called professing "Christian" who rejects that for a changing society is no Christian at all!

"Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." Matthew 19:4-6

"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." Leviticus 18:22

"If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them." Leviticus 20:13

"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error." Romans 1:26-27
 

"We know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God." 1 Timothy 1:8-11

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

How Unholy Can I Be and Still Be Christian?

Last year, Christian rapper Andy Mineo asked the question, "Do you guys really think if a person uses 'profanity' (words we've given meaning) in their music, they couldn't possibly be Christian?" His responses to those who responded to his question were very condescending, ready to crucify anyone who did not side with him. However, there appear to be two problems. One, Andy's responses do not seem to correspond with his initial question, addressing the point of us giving words meanings rather than the use of words our society agrees are vulgar (the difference between formal and colloquial language [colloquialism is the use of slang, profane, or vulgar language]). Two, many of the people responding seem to fail to understand Andy's other responses (the point of us giving words meanings).

Andy points out the fact that we give words meanings and determine what is or is not profane/vulgar by our intentions and usage. For example, the word for a female dog and the word for a rooster and the word for a donkey or mule are not in and of themselves bad words. But we frequently use them as such. Words or phrases considered vulgar in Great Britain are not considered so in Canada or the USA, and vice versa. Different cultures, different societies. Words are just words, but we give them meaning and determine which ones are profane/vulgar given their context and use. However, what is commonly known as "the F word" has no non-profane usage. In fact, the F word is very diverse in its use, being used as a noun, a verb (both transitive and intransitive), an adverb, a preposition, etc. Where it originates from may or may not have meant "to strike," but not a single one of its uses has anything to do with striking something, and every one of its uses is always vulgar. There is not a single instance where you could use the word in a non-vulgar manner. There are other words that have no good usage either, such as the C word used for female genitalia (used in Australia as freely as America uses the F word).

Even if a person's intentions are good, it is still not a wise decision to use common words associated with profanity in one's songs or everyday conversations. Christians are to be set apart from the world. That means our speech ought to be much different from theirs. Our speech is supposed to be seasoned with grace. To be set apart means to be holy. God's Word makes it clear, "Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear" (Eph. 4:29). Ephesians 5:4 even goes so far as to tell us, "there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks." Christians are not to partake in filthy, coarse jokes.

When Christians start asking questions like, "How unholy can I be and still be Christian?," they might want to examine themselves to see if they are actually in the faith. Christians do not ask, "How close can I get to the line without crossing it?" or "How close can I toe the line without crossing it?" Every culture/society is different, and what is profane to one may not be to another. If a particular culture/society deems certain words to be vulgar, then within that culture/society the Christian ought to avoid the use of such words or phrases. One culture/society cannot judge another based on what is considered profane in their own culture/society. This is where Romans 14 would be wisely implemented by Christians. For example, in many locations around the globe today societies are okay with itty-bitty string bikinis, but in the 50s, 60s, and 70s in most of these same places if you were to wear such a thing, the secular authorities would have arrested you. Just because it is okay within a certain society to do something does not mean it is okay for Christians to do. We are different and we are to be different.

Good intentions do not determine right from wrong. It is not okay for a professing Christian woman to strip if she is doing it to put herself through college or university. It is not okay for a man and woman to shack up in the same house or apartment together if they live in two separate bedrooms until they get married. Remember how the Bible speaks about being lukewarm (Rev. 3:16)? Being grey and living in the grey is akin to being lukewarm. You are much better off seeing things as black and white rather than looking for grey spots and toying with how much grey you can indulge in and still remain a Christian. Remember, God is not mocked. The immoral and impure will not inherit the kingdom of God.

A Christian may struggle with the use of profanity and yet not be disqualified as a Christian. However, when they willfully and purposely make use of it, their profession may be called into question. No unwholesome, filthy, coarse, or vulgar speech should proceed from the mouth of a Christian. Andy did not seem to want to see where his responders were coming from, but his responders did not seem to want to see where he was coming from either. He was not trying to stir up contention, but I think even he needs to think more wisely on this issue than he has, as do many of his responders.

The First Amendment

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Unfortunately and sadly, this amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, part of the Bill of Rights, has been violated. The State has established a State religion, but they introduced it and have impressed it upon people under the guise of "science." Evolution is a religion! It is a philosophy, and it is a fairy tale. Every State requires it to be taught in the public school system, indoctrinating children with false information. Every State also has laws that require that the textbooks be accurate and current (up-to-date), which they are not. Evolution is not science! There is not a shred of evidence to support it. Every shred of evidence on this planet and every shred of evidence in outer space all indicate a universe and Earth that are less than 10,000 years old! Science done properly supports the Christian worldview.

Evolution is a State-sponsored religion masked as "science." Americans need to copy down The First Amendment and send a letter to their Senators and to the government, pointing this fact out and asking them to remove it. Evolution has no business being taught in Science Class (Not Supernatural Class) because there is zero scientific evidence to support it. Observe:

“I will lay it on the line, there is not one such [transitional] fossil for which one might make a watertight argument.” –Dr. Colin Patterson

“Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable.” –Sir. Arthur Keith

“Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation. One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.” –George Wald

“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going.” –Francis Crick

“Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time.” –David Raup

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of palaeontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.” –Stephen J. Gould

Those who attempt to argue that the theory of Evolution is science are willfully ignorant, deliberately dishonest, and purposefully blind. Science is what we can test and observe. If you cannot test it and observe it, it has no business being taught in Science Class (Not Supernatural Class). The origins of the universe belong to history, which means that the Big Bang theory and the theory of Evolution, as well as Creation, ought to be taught in History Class—not Science Class. Science is based on the observable. If you cannot observe it, you have moved from the realm of science to the realm of imagination.

What is “Science”?
Apart from its general definition, which means “knowledge” or “to know,” this is what science is:

“science: noun
a collection of the general principles or leading truths relating to any subject. Pure science, as mathematics, is built on self-evident truths; but the term science is also applied to other subjects founded on...experiment and observation”

–American Dictionary of the English Language

“science: noun
a branch of knowledge conducted on objective principles involving the systematized observation of and experiments with phenomena, esp. concerned with the material and functions of the physical universe”

–The Canadian Oxford Dictionary

“science: noun
knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method”

–Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary

“science: noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment”

–Google

“Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. In an older and closely related meaning, “science” also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied.”

–Wikipedia

What is “Scientific Method”?

“scientific method: noun
a method of procedure consisting of systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.”

–The Canadian Oxford Dictionary

“scientific method: noun
principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.”

–Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary

“The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.”

–Wikipedia

What is empirical evidence? Empirical evidence (also known as sense experience) is knowledge acquired by means of the senses (see, hear, smell, taste, touch), particularly by observation and experimentation. There are those words again: test and observe.

True and genuine science consists of the use of the scientific method, which is:

1. Making observations and gathering evidence.
2. Formulating an hypothesis.
3. Performing repeated—and repeatable—experiments that test that hypothesis.
4. Observing the results of those repeated experiments.
5. Either,
   1. Modifying the original hypothesis for further testing (the result of which will eventually and inevitably be a final conclusion [you can only modify your hypothesis so many times before you are merely prolonging the inevitable; eventually you need to accept the truth and draw a conclusion based on all the observations]), or
   2. Drawing a conclusion one way or the other based on the observations, which results in scientific facts (e.g.; H₂O is a scientific fact; it cannot and does not change. H₃O or H₂O₂ would no longer be water.).

If you cannot apply all of these, it is not science! If you cannot test it or observe it, it is not science! It is conjecture, it is speculation, it is imagination, it is inference, and it is theory, but it is not science! Science is what you can test and observe. It is a fact that science cannot explain everything, and only a fool who knows nothing of science would claim that it does or that it can. Observe these quotes:

"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." ―Galileo Galilei

"Everything must be taken into account. If the fact will not fit the theory―let the theory go." ―Agatha Christie

"When the scientific method came into being, it gave us a new window on the truth; namely, a method by laboratory-controlled experiments to winnow true hypotheses from false ones." ―Huston Smith

"Any chemist reading this book can see, in some detail, how I have spent most of my mature life. They can become familiar with the quality of my mind and imagination. They can make judgements about my research abilities. They can tell how well I have documented my claims of experimental results. Any scientist can redo my experiments to see if they still work—and this has happened! I know of no other field in which contributions to world culture are so clearly on exhibit, so cumulative, and so subject to verification." —Donald J. Cram

"The TV scientist who mutters sadly, "The experiment is a failure; we have failed to achieve what we had hoped for," is suffering mainly from a bad script writer. An experiment is never a failure solely because it fails to achieve predicted results. An experiment is a failure only when it also fails adequately to test the hypothesis in question, when the data it produces don't prove anything one way or another." ―Robert M. Pirsig

"Science, my boy, is made up of mistakes, but they are mistakes which it is useful to make, because they lead little by little to the truth." ―Jules Verne

"Scientists are human—they're as biased as any other group. But they do have one great advantage in that science is a self-correcting process." ―Cyril Ponnamperuma

"The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it, with its skeptical protocols, is the pathway to a dark age." ―Carl Sagan

"We must trust to nothing but facts: These are presented to us by Nature, and cannot deceive. We ought, in every instance, to submit our reasoning to the test of experiment, and never to search for truth but by the natural road of experiment and observation." ―Antoine Lavoisier

Your average proponent of the theory of Evolution, being ignorant and never having graduated with a degree from any field of science (but merely believing all the lies and nonsense they are fed through various unscientific books), likes to attempt to argue using "consensus." They try and claim that all scientists are agreed on the subject of the theory of Evolution, which is a fallacious lie! They should pay attention to the following:

"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period." ―Michael Crichton

"I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way." ―Michael Crichton

The following words should be meditated upon deeply because their truth will help an individual to recognize the false from the true.

"We must conduct research and then accept the results. If they don't stand up to experimentation, Buddha's own words must be rejected." ―Dalai Lama XIV

One could also say, "If the Bible doesn't stand up to experimentation, it must be rejected." Anyone who has honestly allowed the Bible to speak for itself and compared it with archaeology, history, and science has found it to be a reliable and trustworthy book. The only reason people do not like it and do not want to accept it, is not because it is not true (because the evidence informs us that it is), but because of the demands it places upon us to repent and trust in the Saviour, Christ Jesus. We are too stubborn and proud and do not want to submit to an authority Who is higher than we are.

Scientists who are honest in the least with their information should be able to agree with and accept the following, because they hold entirely true.

"When things are in order, if the cause of the orderliness cannot be deduced from the motion of the elements or from the composition of matter, it is quite possibly a cause possessing a mind." ―Johannes Kepler

"Things that look like they were designed, probably were... If intelligence is an operative component of the universe, a science that methodologically excludes its existence will be susceptible to being trapped in an endless chase for materialistic causes that do not exist... Where there are sufficient grounds for inferring intelligent causation, based on evidence of "specified complexity," it should be considered as a component of scientific theories.
Inclusion of intelligent causation in the scientific equation is not novel and has not impeded the practice of science in the past, e.g. Newton and Kepler, in an age when science was not constrained by a philosophical materialism, and by many current scientists who have remained open to following the evidence where it leads." ―Donald L. Ewert

"For God to prove himself on demand, physically, would be a grave disappointment, and the strongest Christians should be considerably grateful that he chooses not to do so. The skeptic endlessly demands proof, yet God refuses to insult the true intelligence of man, the '6th sense', the chief quality, the acumen which distinguishes man from the rest of creation, faith." ―Criss Jami

"It is debatable whether blind faith is truly faith at all. Faith is the perceptive gray area where scientific facts meet an individual's experiential truths - the extreme of the former is left feeling in the dark whereas the latter is caught blinded by the light. By proper scientific method, it is intellectually dishonest for me to declare the existence of God with utmost certainty, but to my individual spirit, I would be intellectually dishonest to deny the existence of God even for a second. This leaves the best of both worlds, as the believer is called to be able to give reasons for his faith, a deviation from mere fantasy." ―Criss Jami

So, Americans, get off your derriéres and write your Senators, your Congress, and your government and share this information with them. Demand they remove the State religion of Evolution from Science Class and get it out of the public schools, colleges, and universities. If you cannot test it and observe it, it does not belong in Science Class. Things that begin and end at the hypothesis do not belong in Science Class. Only things that can be tested and observed, and which tests can be repeated and observed, should be taught in Science Class. If you want to include any examples of the "science" being taught in Science Class (Not Supernatural Class) that have no business being taught there, consider the examples raised in Bill Nye Foolish Guy. You can also pick up the book Science vs. Evolution by Vance Ferrell, previously titled The Evolution Handbook.

Bill Nye Foolish Guy

Re: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPLRhVdNp5M

"In the process of science, as soon as you work backwards and introduce a miracle, a miraculous event, then it's no longer science." —Bill Nye

Which is precisely what Evolutionists have done with the Big Bang theory. In the 1920s they discovered that space is expanding, precisely as recorded in the Bible (Job 9:8; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 40:22; 42:5; 44:24; 45:12; 48:13; 51:13; Zechariah 12:1), and in the 1930s they came up with the Big Bang theory, assuming that the expansion meant that if you reverse it you arrive at a single point much like a drawing on single-point perspective. Not once did they ever put their thinking caps on and consider the problems with such a concept. What created it? What caused it to expand? If nothing means nothing, where did the dirt and dust come from that were apparently drawn together by gravity to form a ball smaller than a period on a page before starting to spin faster and faster until it exploded and began to expand? If there were dust and dirt in the vast nothingness, where did gravity come from? What caused the gathered dust and dirt to start spinning? The Law of Inertia states than any object in motion, any pieces that fall off or break off from that object will continue spinning in the same direction until they encounter resistance. If nothing means nothing, what possible resistance could these pieces ever encounter in order to alter their direction? The further out the pieces got, the farther apart they would be from each other. In other words, every planet and moon in our universe ought to be spinning and traveling in the same direction.

Furthermore, that is precisely what Evolutionists have done with the theory of Evolution. They claim that birds were once lizards and lizards were once fish and so on and so on. Not only is there absolutely zero evidence to support such nonsense, but the DNA of every plant and animal on this planet is unique to itself and its own kind. You can have loss of existing information, such as a child being born without an arm or a leg, and you can have mutation of existing information, such as a child being born with an extra arm or leg, but there has never been the addition of new information. It is impossible! The information that is there can only reproduce after the information that is there. Every human being that is on this planet came from another human being. And if you take any two human beings today—Caucasian and African, Asian and South American, Indian and British, Spanish and Australian, etc.—the result will be another human being. Human beings never came from apes, monkeys, chimpanzees or anything else. Human beings have always been human beings. Birds have always been birds. Lizards have always been lizards. Fish have always been fish. There is not one single intermediary fossil in existence. Not a single creature evolved into a completely different creature. It simply did not happen!

"In science class there's no supernatural explanations." —Bill Nye

Except for the Big Bang theory. Except for the Evolution theory. Except for the Pangaea theory. All supernatural explanations for which there is absolutely zero evidence to support them. Mr. Nye fails to see the difference between science—that which is testable and observable—and supernatural. Everything just discussed above is entirely supernatural. From nothing—nothing means nothing—comes absolutely everything? Dirt created everything? Dirt is eternal?

The theory of Evolution teaches that we evolved from a rock. Follow their story backward some time. From a big molten rock, somehow it miraculously rained on this molten rock in order to cool it, and somehow non-existent organisms miraculously began to exist in the water before eventually evolving into everything we see around us today. The only "evolution" we observe scientifically is that of micro-evolution, or more accurately described as adaptation. Certain salt-water fish have adapted to fresh water, and certain fresh-water fish have adapted to salt water. It is not evolution. An animal growing a thicker coat of fur in the winter and shedding that coat of fur in the summer is an adaptation. If humans move to colder or hotter climates, we can adapt. Macro-evolution is complete and utter imaginative nonsense. The complex intricacies of every plant and animal on this planet disprove the theory of Evolution. Evolutionists would do well to use their eyes and look at the complexities that exist within every plant and animal. Every plant and animal is unique. Hold a rat in your hands and examine it closely. Do the same with a gerbil and a hamster and a mouse. These plants and animals are extraordinary. To argue that they evolved is ridiculous and anti-intellectual.

"People on the outside, from a non-supernatural standpoint, have shown that your worldview could not possibly have happened." —Bill Nye

Not true in the least, Mr. Nye. Examine everything I have just discussed above and you will see that the Evolutionist's worldview could not possibly have happened. There is absolutely zero evidence to support it, and using science and the scientific method we see absolutely zero such miraculous things happening today. The Evolutionist worldview is bankrupt. Every branch of science irrefutably and undeniably points toward intelligent design. Something had to create what we see around us. Either it was an intelligent being—God, or it was dirt. Either God is eternal, or dirt is eternal. Only one of those two choices makes any sense. Science cannot explain everything in the physical world, so how does one assume it is going to be able to explain anything in the supernatural world? Mr. Nye attempts to dismiss creation as being supernatural, but it is nowhere near as supernatural as the Big Bang theory and the theory of Evolution. There is zero science to support either of those two theories.

Evolutionists need to remember and pay attention to every law that governs our universe. Every law that governs our universe utterly obliterates the theory of Evolution. Simple mathematical equations combined with what we can test and observe (science) in our universe utterly obliterate the theory of Evolution. Observe:

#1. It is a scientific fact that the sun burns off X amount of gas every day. You can measure this and then apply simple mathematics to it. If you multiply that number by only 1 million years, you have a problem. The sun was once so big that it would have touched the Earth.

#2. It is a scientific fact that the moon is moving away from the Earth by X amount of distance every year. You can measure this and then apply simple mathematics to it. If you multiply that number by only 1 million years, you have a problem. The moon would have been so close to the Earth that the tall dinosaurs (previously called dragons) would have been mooned. There is a scientific law, called the Inverse Square Law, that states if you half the distance you quadruple the effect. If you were to move the moon in half of its current distance, the Earth would have been flooded twice a day due to the effects of the moon on the water. If you use the rate at which the moon is moving away from the Earth, at only 1.4 million years, let alone "billions" of years, the Earth and the moon would have occupied the same space.

#3. It is a scientific fact that the Earth is slowing down by X amount every year. You can measure this and then apply simple mathematics to it. If you multiply that number by only 1 million years, you have a problem. The Earth would have been spinning so fast at one time that everything on the surface would have been thrown off into outer space. Before you attempt to argue the egregious and erroneous theory that gravity would have been increased, try thinking about a merry-go-round. The faster you get that thing going, what happens? You get forced to the outside. Gravity does not increase.

#4. Consider a spinning wheel. It is a scientific fact that the outside of the wheel has to turn faster than the inside of the wheel. Now go take a look at the Milky Way, or any number of our other spiral galaxies. They are spinning in the reverse. Ergo, you have a problem. If our universe were only 1 million years old, the Milky Way would not look the way it currently does.

#5. It is a scientific fact that the Earth's magnetic field is decaying; it is getting weaker. You can measure this and then apply simple mathematics to it. If you go back only 1 million years, you have a problem. Earth's magnetic field would have been so strong that it would have ripped the iron from your blood.

#6. It is a scientific fact that Jupiter emits twice as much energy as it receives from the sun. Neptune emits even more. You can measure this and then apply simple mathematics to it. How do these planets still have warmth and energy if they are "millions," let alone "billions," of years old? It is impossible! Secular "scientists" cannot even explain this. The evidence contradicts their theory.

The existence and nature of numbers utterly obliterates the theory of Evolution (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkwCl0ymTfg). Why does the physical world obey the laws of mathematics? Secular atheist evolutionary "scientists" cannot explain it because their worldview is bankrupt. Humans did not create numbers; we discovered them. Where did they come from? They are the same everywhere you go.

Here are just a couple of things that science used to teach and believe many, many years ago (because they refused to believe the Bible):

1. the earth was flat
2. only 1,100 stars
3. earth sat on a large animal
4. nothing—science was ignorant on the subject of invisible elements in creation
5. all stars were the same
6. light was fixed in a place
7. air was weightless
8. winds blew straight
9. sick people must be bled (This is how one of the Presidents of the USA died.)
10. the ocean floor was flat
11. oceans fed by only by rivers and rain
12. hands washed in still water

This is what science knows today, and the passage of Scripture that it is found in. Bear in mind that parts of the Bible were written 2,000 to 4,000 years ago.

1. the earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22)
2. incalculable number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22)
3. free float of earth in space (Job 26:7)
4. creation made of invisible elements—atoms (Hebrews 11:3)
5. each star is different (1 Corinthians 15:41)
6. light moves (Job 38:19-20)
7. air has weight (Job 28:25)
8. winds blow in cyclones (Ecclesiastes 1:6)
9. blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11)
10. ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains (2 Samuel 22:16; Jonah 2:6)
11. ocean contains springs (Job 28:6)
12. when dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13)

Here are some questions to stimulate your thinking process and to get you started on thinking correctly and objectively for yourself rather than being spoon-fed a fantastically fabulous imaginative fairy tale.

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
2. Where did matter come from?
3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?
7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining the English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
13. When, where, why, and how did:
1. Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two- and three-celled intermediates?)
2. Single-celled animals evolve?
3. Fish change to amphibians?
4. Amphibians change to reptiles?
5. Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) How did the intermediate forms live?
14. When, where, why, how, and from what did:
1. Whales evolve?
2. Sea horses evolve?
3. Bats evolve?
4. Eyes evolve?
5. Ears evolve?
6. Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)?
1. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
2. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
3. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
4. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
5. The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
6. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
7. The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
8. The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
9. The immune system or the need for it?
16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?
18. When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
19. How did photosynthesis evolve?
20. How did thought evolve?
21. How did flowering plants evolve, and from what?
22. What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?
23. What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?
24. Is there one clear prediction of macro-evolution that has proved true?
25. What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen gas becoming human?
26. Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?
27. When, where, why, and how did matter create DNA, which is an intricately complex language system?
28. When, where, why, how, and from what did numbers evolve? Why does our entire physical world obey the laws of mathematics?

These are things that secular atheistic evolutionary "scientists" cannot explain. Secular atheistic evolutionary "scientists" are dishonest, untrustworthy, and blatant liars.  Every shred of evidence on this planet and every shred of evidence in outer space all indicate a universe and Earth that are less than 10,000 years old! Science done properly supports the Christian worldview. Period!

The Apathetic Church

I have been absent from the church for three months. Several of those weeks were due to fighting off the flu. A couple were due to being overtired from working so many hours of overtime, or just sleeping in due to being overtired from working so many hours of overtime. In those three months, not a single member of the church reached out to see how I was doing or to find out if I had switched churches or simply quit going altogether. Yeah... Can you feel the love?

"Whoever has the world's goods, and beholds his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?" 1 John 3:17

"The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love." 1 John 4:8

"...the one who loves God should love his brother also." 1 John 4:21b

As the above passages imply, when your heart conveys an attitude of indifference toward the plight of your brothers and sisters in Christ, then perhaps you might want to examine yourself to see if you are truly a Christian, because your claim to love God is contradicted by the lack of love you show for and toward your brothers and sisters in Christ.

"Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do, and does not do it, to him it is sin." James 4:17

"Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in your power to do it." Proverbs 3:27

"Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth." 1 John 3:18

Indifference is apathy. Apathy is the opposite of love. If you do not care one way or another about the plight of your brothers and sisters in Christ, you are in direct contradiction to what the Bible says about loving your brother and neighbour.

"If someone says, 'I love God,' and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen." 1 John 4:20

Apathy is akin to hatred. Is it any wonder why I desire to move to Peru where even the unsaved know what it means to look out for and love your brother and neighbour? Families look out for one another there, in every capacity. Not just your close relatives (father, mother, brother sister), but your distant relatives (aunts, uncles, cousins). Several of the churches there look out for believers who are not even members of their church, or even fellow countrymen. Why? Because it is the right thing to do. We all belong to one body, to the same invisible church. It is truly remarkable how in a third world country both the saved and unsaved reflect what we see happening in the book of Acts, but here in North America even the church is apathetic and unloving toward its own members let alone to other believers outside their membership. This alone has the effect of creating cold, hard hearts within believers.

My speech may not be seasoned very well with grace, and I might not show love very well with my words, but I still know what is required of me as a follower of Jesus and I do my best to do whatever is within my power to do. If your works do not bear out your faith, then your faith is dead, worthless, and useless because the old cliché still holds true: actions speak louder than words. What you truly and honestly believe will be seen in your actions. Anathema to any church or Christian that is indifferent and apathetic toward their brothers and sisters in Christ and toward their neighbour.

Christian Disciple

"Being a disciple is necessary to be a Christian."

This doctrine of the International Church of Christ is both true and false. Matt Slick from CARM lists it as an aberrant doctrine, but fails to explain why he thinks it is an aberrant doctrine. I surmise he does not know what he is talking about. Every genuine Christian is a disciple of Jesus, but not every disciple of Jesus is a Christian. Therefore, being a disciple is necessary to be a Christian.You cannot be a Christian if you are not a disciple.

"As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore." John 6:66

What we have in this verse is apostasy. This is not speaking of His twelve disciples. It is speaking of the multitudes that followed him. Disciple means learner. Every genuine Christian is a disciple of Jesus, but not every disciple of Jesus is a Christian. This verse proves it. In conjuction with this verse, John wrote:

"They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us." 1 John 2:19

I would like to know how Matt Slick figures that this teaching is false and aberrant when Scripture clearly teaches contrary to his presumption. The International Church of Christ may indeed be a cult, but this teaching, at least properly understood, is true. To say that you can be a Christian and not be a disciple is false. That is like saying Jesus can be your Saviour without being your Lord. That, too, is false. If He is not Lord of your life, He is not Saviour of your life. The two go hand-in-hand. He saves you to command you. Look at these statements made by Jesus in regard to being a disciple.

"If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple." Luke 14:26

"Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple." Luke 14:27

"So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions." Luke 14:33

Look up the words "disciple" and "disciples" in the Bible and read every passage. Read the surrounding verses for the context. Scripture makes it quite clear. Someone who sits under and learns from Jesus is a disciple. Christians are to sit under and learn from Jesus. Ergo, we are disciples. Being a disciple is necessary to be a Christian.You cannot be a Christian if you are not a disciple.