CultureWatch

Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day...

Faith, Rationality, and the Limits of Science

Feb 21, 2019

While I am not a scientist, I have long been a keen student of philosophy, including the philosophy of science. And like all other types of philosophy – political philosophy, moral philosophy, etc – there are various worldview commitments that one takes to this particular field of study.

Thus even scientists can be biased, or skewed, or lacking in objectivity. The idea of a completely neutral and unbiased scientist is a myth. Everyone has prior ideological commitments which determines how one views things, even the man or woman in the white lab coat. We all have various presuppositions that we take into our fields of study.

Many have pointed this out over the years. Let me mention just one such person, and some of his books which I have just pulled off my shelves, blown the dust off, and revisited. Back in 1946 Hungarian/English chemist and philosopher Michael Polanyi (1891-1976) wrote Science, Faith and Society. And in 1958 he wrote his important Personal Knowledge.

In these and other works Polanyi sought to show that all knowing relies upon various prior commitments, and that even scientists cannot ignore the role personal commitments plays in their work. Moreover, there are limitations to science, and science cannot tell us everything there is to know.

With all this in mind, let me make you aware of three new books on these sorts of themes. I have recently bought and read them and they make a welcome addition to my growing library on these topics. These quite helpful volumes all discuss these crucial matters, and they are all penned by important Christian thinkers who are veterans in the field. The three books are these:

-John Lennox, Can Science Explain Everything? The Good Book Company, 2019.
-Alister McGrath, The Great Mystery: Science, God and the Human Quest for Meaning. Hodder & Stoughton, 2017.
-J. P. Moreland, Scientism and Secularism. Crossway, 2018.

Let me briefly look at each. As to the authors, Lennox is an Oxford mathematician; McGrath, also at Oxford, has advanced degrees in science and theology; and Moreland is an American philosopher. All three have written extensively on matters of science, the philosophy of science, and the Christian approach to these areas.

The book by Lennox is the briefest of the three (just 120 pages), and those who have followed him in the past will find some familiar territory here. But there is much of value nonetheless, including his discussions about why science is limited, how we must be wary of scientism (the idea that science is the only way to truth), and the relationship between faith, reason and belief.

Along the way he deals with various myths often heard about such matters, including:

-religion depends on faith but science doesn’t
-science depends on reason but religion doesn’t
-science is testable but religion is not

As to the last myth, he notes how science certainly is based on testing: hypotheses, new ideas and theories are all tested. But Christianity and its truth claims are testable as well. The historical and factual nature of what Jesus said and did for example can be tested.

And Christianity can be tested at the personal level as well. Moreover, some important scientific theories have not been tested – at least not yet, such as Stephen Hawking’s theory that black holes radiate. Says Lennox, it is “widely thought that anyone who devises a test that confirms his prediction would win a Nobel Prize.”

All up this is a very helpful and accessible volume looking at various important and often complex matters. Christians will certainly benefit from it, but so too will scientists and others. And those who believe that God and science don’t mix will find many of their core beliefs challenged here.

The second book is another new and important volume. McGrath has written dozens of books on science and on theology, and he has been discussing these matters for decades now. He is the most prolific of the three in this regard, with many thousands of pages devoted to this matter all up.

Here in some 250 pages of quite readable and informative prose he looks closely at the question of human nature, and how we might understand it from both religious and scientific vantage points. Says McGrath, the “mystery of human identity and meaning set out in this book is both informed by science and nourished and enriched by the Christian tradition.”

He examines in detail various matters, such as man’s search for meaning; the limitations of science; the myth of progress; and the relationship between faith and science. He notes that we seem to be the only species which asks questions like: Why am I here? What is life all about?

Says McGrath: “Any comprehensive and reliable account of humanity has to take into account the innate tendency towards religion or spirituality that seems to be an intrinsic aspect of human nature.” And those belief systems that rule out religion a priori need to be rethought.

Image of Scientism and Secularism: Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology
Scientism and Secularism: Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology by J. P. Moreland Amazon logo

Consider the issue of secularism and progress, and the notion that religion is a barrier to human advancement. But modern science grew out of the Judeo-Christian worldview, and many key scientists have been – and are – committed Christians.

And the Enlightenment notion of progress has also postulated the belief that abandoning religion would mean the end to most violence and warfare. But, as McGrath puts it, the “history of the twentieth century is perhaps the greatest obstacle that the metanarrative of secular progress has to overcome.”

He concludes by noting that the great mystery of human identity and meaning must take into account more than just what scientism and philosophical naturalism have to offer us. Indeed, we need a “sense of humility in the presence of something greater than us”.

Finally consider the latest offering by Moreland. Of the three books being examined here, his may be the most philosophical and wide-ranging. He has meaty chapters on things like scientism, methodological naturalism, intelligent design, and non-scientific knowledge. Much of the volume is a refutation of scientism.

He defines this as “the view that the hard sciences alone have the intellectual authority to give us knowledge of reality. Everything else – especially ethics, theology, and philosophy – is, at least according to scientism, based on private emotions, blind faith, or cultural upbringing.”

But he shows how scientism is not a doctrine of science, but a doctrine of philosophy. Indeed, it is a distortion of science. He demonstrates how this misuse and abuse of science has negatively impacted things in the West. Other issues, such as ‘five things science cannot in principle explain’ are carefully examined in this book.

Although just a brief volume (200 pages), Christians and non-Christians alike will find much in here to benefit from. Moreland always offers us worthwhile reading and food for thought, and this volume is no exception. The philosophically-minded among us will greatly appreciate it, but so too the average Christian who simply wonders about and ponders on such matters.

On the making of books on the intersection of science and religion there is no end. But these three new volumes are worth adding to any such collection of volumes. All are short enough and easy enough to follow that all can get much from them. But all are profound enough and challenging enough to interest the deepest of thinkers.

(For Australians, all three of these books can be found at Koorong.)

[1221 words]

40 Responses to Faith, Rationality, and the Limits of Science

  • Ed Feser’s Scholastic Metaphysics and his soon to be released Aristotle’s Revenge will both be worthwhile. Although perhaps a little hard going if you dont have some background in philosophy.

  • Hi Bill,
    Science is limited in that it can only explain the tangible stuff.
    And you know scientists are biased when they call theories like evolution a fact.
    However, to me, scientific discoveries provide more evidence of intelligent design in the universe, that is, a created universe.
    I also think you can prove God exists by listing all the fulfilled Messianic prophecies. Such proof by statistics (a form of science) would even hold up in a court of law as beyond reasonable doubt.
    And I love John Lennox.
    He wrote a great book on God’s sovereignty and human freedom / responsibility.
    It’s called ‘Determined to Believe?’ Note the question mark in the title (it is non-Calvinist).
    kind regards,
    Kyle

  • SIGNIFICANCE OF UNDERMINING BIBLICAL AUTHORITY
    • Lack of belief in the authority of the Bible has led to the undermining of values in society and by governments/legislators, especially in the West.
    • Henry Morris (the founder of the modern creation movement) said:
    “The field of science that has probably been most effectively used by sceptics in attempting to discredit the Bible is geology”.

    IMPORTANCE OF SCRIPTURAL FRAMEWORK FOR INTERPRETATION OF GEOLOGICAL HISTORY
    2 Peter 3 gives a high-level indication of past geological history versus today’s sceptical view.
    PAST: CREATION & FLOOD
    • For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, (2 Peter 3:5)
    • and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. (2 Peter 3:6)
    PRESENT: UNIFORMITARIANISM & GRADUALISM
    • knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires (2 Peter 3:3). They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation. “(2 Peter 3:4)

    Strong affirmation from Hebrew Scholars, for a literal Interpretation of the Genesis accounts:
    The plain meaning of scripture (summarised quote):
    ‘… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:
    a. creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience [Genesis 1]
    b. the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story
    c. Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.’ [Genesis 6 to 8]
    Reference: Letter by James Barr, 1984, then Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University

    In the ten commandments:
    For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore, the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy (Exodus 20:11 ESV).

    The plain inference from scripture is that of Creation less than 10,000 years ago:
    6-day Creation + genealogies Adam to Christ + time from Christ to the present.

    OPPOSITION TO LITERAL SCRIPTURAL UNDERSTANDINGS OF CREATION AND THE FLOOD
    Denial of the Bible’s authority by today’s uniformitarianism and gradualism
    Geologist and lawyer Charles Lyell wanted to “liberate science from Moses”. He wrote “Principles of Geology”. (https://creation.com/charles-lyell-free-science-from-moses)
    • Lyell was against a global Flood and his promotion of long ages made Charles Darwin think that biological evolution was more plausible.
    • Since the time of Lyell and Darwin, the Bible has been deliberately excluded from mainstream science, and even scoffed at.
    • Scientific research is commonly put in a deep-time evolution framework of understanding and millions of children and adults are taught long ages. The numerous flaws in long age evolutionary geology are commonly ignored.

    Today even a number of Christians, including church and Bible college leaders
    • do not believe the plain literal reading of the text about origins, or want to avoid discussing it, thinking it too controversial or too complicated.
    • impose on scripture an interpretation which comes from a long age, uniformitarian and gradualistic view of geology, which has permeated our culture since the time of Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin.

    More research is needed
    • Much has already been written on the flaws in long age evolutionary geology.
    • However, the labourers are few to come up with a comprehensive constructive biblical model encompassing geology from Archean to Recent, that will effectively rival long age geology.
    • Young Earth Christian geology networks can provide opportunities for discussion and to improve constructive models.
    As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another (Proverbs 27:17)

  • At my church, we are taught Christian apologetics, we use material from William Lane Craig. I would advise parents to read On Guard with their teens, most teens, however, could read it on there own. Parents ought to read Reasonable Faith by the same author and if you debate online or if you are a Mr M then you should have a copy of Natural Theology by the same author but in addition, it has J.P. Morland co-authoring. Its, not a book you read cover to cover unless you are a Mr M type, but a reference book to use when the militant atheists try to bury you in science or claims from science that are not true. The equivalent, but much simpler book (relatively) is Evidence That Demands A Verdict but make sure to buy the updated version. I like Mr M enjoy philosophy and take it as an enrichment topic at school. Its something well worth either reading up on or taking a course in as it helps you spot logical errors in peoples arguments.

  • >>Hi Mr Bracher,
    I am interested in intelligent design too. Have you read Michael Behe’s, Darwin’s Black Box it’s very good.

    I noticed you mentioned evolution in the negative, which may cause confusion if not stated correctly. We, as Christians, believe in evolution, but in the micro sense but not in the macro sense, as you and I believe in different varieties of dogs and cross-breeding that takes place, that is micro-evolution and its biblical see Genesis 1:24, note the wording. Macro-Evolution we reject as that states you and I evolved from fish.

    So put simply, a dog may evolve into other types of dogs, but will always be a dog.

    God instructed the EARTH to bring forth different kinds, that’s what scientists call micro-evolution and so do we, where we differ, is who initiated the action, we say God, scientists say, nonsense lol.

    Further, we believe in the Big bang, since we believe the universe had a beginning, where scientists until recently believed the universe was eternally old (had always existed). Now they have to face the fact that the universe had a beginning (13.8 billion years ago), we believe the universe had a beginning and God is eternally old. You should see, hopefully, science has come around to the biblical account, in that part, anyway. It gets better, we know from science that the universe is expanding, the way to visualise this is to take a deflated balloon and put several “O” on the ballon with a ball pen, then inflate the balloon and note how the “O” are moving away from each other, as the universe expands (the balloon actually.) and what does the bible say on this matter, Isaiah 45:12 and Psalm 104:2.

    We have nothing to fear from science, however, this is what one scientist wrote-

    “At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
    ? Robert Jastrow

    “Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.”
    ? Robert Jastrow

  • Well said, Richard Bruce. And as the Bible exhorts, “Let every matter be established on the testimony of two or more eyewitnesses.” Scientists cannot observe the past or future; they can only be good eyewitnesses of the present. Whereas the Bible gives us an eyewitness account from the very beginning of time. Nothing trumps it.

    It was only in my thirties, once I understood this key time-limit of science, that my faith leapt in bounds. In hindsight I remembered being taught philosophy of science at uni, and that certain sectors of ‘science’ don’t adhere to basic (e.g. Popper) principles. Paleontologists witness fossils, not eons of time. Similarly biologists observe plants and animals, and anthropologists view artefacts, they don’t observe long ages of time.

  • Thanks for the links Mr M. I note in the second link you mentioned Ravi Zacharias he is really good. I have his book “The Real Face Of Atheism”. It’s really good and an easy read too. my all-time favourite is CS Lewis though.
    Thank you so much Mr M. Sarah xx.

  • I’m looking forward to reading this website every day for Sarah Clark’s insights as much as Bill Muehlenberg’s! 😉
    I’m in awe of how both of you find time for your studies, your social network interactions and your essay writing. Bless you, Sarah, for your clear-eyed, confident contributions. When you get a blog of your own I’ll pop in to proof-read it for you, just as I do to Bill on the odd occasion. That’s apart from deepening my understanding from your thoughts.

  • Some clarification Sarah: God is not “eternally old”: he is not ‘old’ he simply ‘is’. Period. He is the “I AM”, Yahweh, who exists independently of the time, space and matter/energy of the universe he created.

    To all: Lennox, McGrath, Craig etc, are top-notch Christian apologists – EXCEPT re Genesis 1-11. They do not believe what the Bible plainly says indicating creation in six days about six thousand years ago. In debates, opponents are ruthless in exposing illogical views. E.g. Magnusson, defending homosexuality against Peter Jensen (a good Christian apologist), agreed that the Bible totally prohibited homosexuality, but challenged that since Jensen didn’t believe that God created the heavens and the earth in six days, why should he believe the rest of the Bible.

    In contrast atheists etc. usually refuse point blank to debate good Christian apologists who can defend a literal Genesis 1-11. E.g. In a famous Oxford debate between A.E. Wilder-Smith & Co. and Dawkins & Co. Dawkins was so upset that a significant minority of the audience thought that the young earth team won, that he vowed to never debate ‘creationists’ again. You see, real science is on our side if only we will stand up and defend the truth.

    Gen 1-11 literally true?! The Bible is emphatic that god wrote in stone with his own finger that “… in six days Yahweh made the heavens and the earth and the sea and everything in them …”. There’s no billions of years there. But it took me, an Engineer who became a Christian as an adult, years to realise that 6-day creation 6,000 years ago is literally true from the point of view of an observer on earth. Hence 6 days could pass on earth while billions of years pass in the starry heavens.

    How so? Evidence from astronomy (Quantisation of red-shifts, plus the fact that the density of the heavens are more or less the same in all directions) indicates that our solar system is relatively near the centre of the universe. So in the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth (formless and empty) and set about organising it, creating light etc, it is reasonable that the earth, the centre of God’s focus, was near the centre of the universe before God spread it out.

    Hence earth was likely in a single central black hole, where time goes slowly, but as the heavens spread out and the event horizon shrank, time would have gone much faster on the edges of the universe. Then, by Day-4, the event horizon vanished and the starry heavens were revealed. That’s an application of time dilation due to gravity – proven science where your car GPS would not work if the GPS did not allow for the fact that time runs faster in the GPS satellite than it does in your car.

    The church needs to repent and publicly defend Genesis 1-11 as straight history. But, sadly, there is a strong correlation between the decline of the Western church and the acceptance of billions of years of evolution.

  • In response to Sarah Clark I would suggest there is huge evidence against what people push as micro-evolution as well. Science knows full well that DNA can, under certain circumstances, be transferred through the cell and nucleus walls, they in fact use techniques, including natural ones, to do genetic modification (GM) by introducing viable DNA strands into different organisms this way. Viruses actually reproduce by introducing their own DNA into a cell and then hijacking the micro-machinery within the cell to reproduce the virus. When people speak of micro-evolution such as microbes that develop antibiotic resistance, the probability that this occurred through the introduction of a viable strand of DNA from an already resistant species is vastly more likely than the DNA resistance “evolving” through genetic mutations creating a viable sequence within the organism itself, giving it that capability. Scientists know these things occur yet they still are not game enough to speak out against the atheistic explanation because atheism is touted as a required basis to do science these days despite the huge history of people who assumed the existence of God doing the very best science in the past and the fact that atheism is, in reality, a religious belief.

    This is very little different to the fact that we know that chemical evolution, at the molecular level, is impossible but this still does not prevent scientists claiming abiogenesis.

  • >> Mr Purcell,
    Thank you so much, Mr Purcell. I wish it could be you who marked my epto and English lit homework lol.

    Mr M is really good at what he does, isn’t he? I think it’s something you really have to have a heart for since it’s a lot of work and I bet he gets little thanks for it. My heart is set on being a wife and a mother I will be really good at that. Christianity needs the women to produce children since the secular atheists aren’t producing offspring at a rate enough to stand still, not to mention, they exterminate their gene pass on facility in large numbers, which shows their utter intellectual dishonesty since they like to tell me our only purpose is to pass on our genes, it’s odd to me since on the one hand they say that and on the other claim it’s a woman’s right to destroy the gene pass on facility, but I suppose if they didn’t think and act so intellectually dishonest they would be theists.

  • >>Mr Newland,
    “Some clarification Sarah: God is not “eternally old”: he is not ‘old’ he simply ‘is”.

    Thank you for that correction Mr Newland, eternally old in our science class describes that which has always existed, so I used that term, however, “simply is”, sounds better.

    “He is the “I AM”, Yahweh, who exists independently of the time, space and matter/energy of the universe he created”.

    Indeed he is. Timeless, spaceless, enormously powerful, yet takes up no space. Yet, he invades my space when I need him.

    I think those who specialise in Genesis from both sides make for really interesting debates. It’s very important indeed to understand the Bible isn’t in error but our interpretation can be.

    I’m not sure the decline in Christianity is the result of a poor understanding of Genesis. I think the decline is due to people do not fear God any longer, most do not fear their earthly fathers even. If I analyse the boys in my class at school who are militant atheists they operate at the level where it only requires of them to be intellectually lazy, but they are told just holding to atheism makes them part of the brites. If you happen to be a lad struggling to read in an education system that is failing you the result is such boys will grasp on to whatever offers them some level of importance. They were actually telling me before the spring break my ancestors were illiterate goat herders while copying my physics homework lol, which I spent at least 1/2 an hour btw making a specially prepared version for them to copy which got them detention and a little smile from the goat herders offspring.

    “I think we need to consider that atheists blindly follow Macro Evolution so reject Gen 1”.

    Note how they now claim there isn’t such a thing as micro/macro evolution, but just- evolution, the reason being since it was pointed out to them by theists no less, that claiming microevolution is evidence for macroevolution is a textbook case for circular reasoning lol! On our side we are much more open-minded, we even debate amongst each other so we are sure we have the correct interpretation of scripture, that is actually good since one side or the other will be wrong, but one will be right. It’s important we have covered our due diligence to arrive at the right.

  • >>Mr Weeks,
    “In response to Sarah Clark, I would suggest there is huge evidence against wha . . . .”

    Yes, Mr weeks, sir, but keep in mind you do not have to do the heavy lifting (as my dad calls it) describing the possibilities of DNA is the equivalent of me standing in my dad’s vegetable garden and asking, daddy where did all these cabbages come from and my dad, tips a packet of cabbage seed into my hand and says from seeds sweetness. Seeds aren’t an explanation for the cabbage and if it was maintained seeds were there would just be a regression back to God.
    Remember now we have a beginning to the universe we no need to argue matter we just have to point out to such as those you speak of that they have to acknowledge miracles exist and for the godless, the universe coming into existence is a miracle. My science teacher who is an atheist as far as I know told me that the evolution that has been propagated for the last 50 years is not being propagated any longer by those in their ivory towers since there are too many floors in its application to what we know. he went on to say, evolution is still and will be, an important part of science as it does have explanatory value but it will take years for evolution that is pushed today to be replaced by the new, whatever that is, since all the old guard has to die off before the new can come in. he said as regards my course work the object of the exercise is to get an “A” and if telling the teacher what he wants to hear gets that “A” play the game, that is the state science has got to sir its become a war between theists and science sadly.

    I think Quantum mechanics will be the new push from science and materialism will die a slow death, there will be no apology for misleading the public as to its religious-like phubber in its propagation.
    Some of the experiments taking place on Quantum physics are mind-blowing. I think possibly science has up until now knowingly or unknowingly been identifying how God created the material world (the mechanics of it) it could be in Quantum mechanics science may just be able to Identify how God himself interacts in the world perhaps (the mechanics of it). It is very interesting indeed and interestingly scientists working in this field tend to have theistic leanings. I think once it was acknowledged by scientists the universe had a beginning it became intellectually suicidal to claim to hold to an atheistic materialist view of reality and intellectually reasonable to be a theist.

  • Two of the best books I ever read on science and Christianity were by Moreland. Brilliant thinker.

  • Sarah, it ‘ain’t necessarily so’ that “one side or the other will be wrong, but one will be right.” I know several Christians who disagree with each other on Genesis. There are many more than two sides in the wide variation of contradictory opinions.

    Genesis 1&2 is interpreted with and without time gaps in various places, with ‘days’ varying from a day to billions of years, and even re the meaning of many single verses.

    E.g. A well known Christian recently debated with me that Cain got his wife from Homo sapiens people who lived by the many thousands for thousands of years before God created Adam and Eve from dust “without belly-buttons”. Several modern translations were quoted to support that claim. When I did due diligence I found that every one of the ‘translations’ cited was post 1970 and none of them explained the fact that they were taking liberties with the Hebrew. If you want more detail, you can find our debate at tinyurl.com/BibleOrEvolution.

    While “I’m not sure the decline in Christianity is the result of a poor understanding of Genesis,” there is a strong correlation of the decline church public credibility and influence following acceptance of Darwin’s theory of evolution. First scientists began to accept Darwin’s theory, then Bible college theologians, then pastors, then congregations, and lastly Bible translators.

    In street outreach I often talk with ex-Christians and atheists who reject Christianity because they believe that science has proved the Bible wrong. I believe that re-interpreting the Bible to make it agree with long-ages of evolution is an impossible task that just doesn’t pass the street test.

  • >>Mr Newland,
    “Sarah, it ‘ain’t necessarily so’ that “one side or the other will be wrong, but one will be right.” I know several Christians who disagree with each other on Genesis. There are many more than two sides in the wide variation of contradictory opinions.”

    “Genesis 1&2 is interpreted with and without time gaps in various places, with ‘days’ varying from a day to billions of years, and even re the meaning of many single verses”.

    Yes, there are sir, I do agree, but it would be true to say the two main views revolve around the length of days in Genesis where Christians are concerned and what atheist think, who cares?

    “E.g. A well known Christian recently debated with me that Cain got his wife from Homo sapiens people who lived by the many thousands for thousands of years before God created Adam and Eve from dust “without belly-buttons”. Several modern translations were quoted to support that claim. When I did due diligence I found that every one of the ‘translations’ cited was post-1970 and none of them explained the fact that they were taking liberties with the Hebrew. If you want more detail, you can find our debate at tinyurl.com/BibleOrEvolution”.

    Thank you, sir, I would be interested in checking that out. I can see this is your passion. My understanding was that Cain married his sister since their geans were not likely to cause problems since the fall hadn’t impacted on humanity to the point it had today. I did think that explanation was a little bizarre but it made sense given the lack of females available to him.

    ” There is a strong correlation of the decline church public credibility and influence following acceptance of Darwin’s theory of evolution. First scientists began to accept Darwin’s theory, then Bible college theologians, then pastors, then congregations, and lastly Bible translators”.

    “In street outreach, I often talk with ex-Christians and atheists who reject Christianity because they believe that science has proved the Bible wrong. I believe that re-interpreting the Bible to make it agree with long-ages of evolution is an impossible task that just doesn’t pass the street test.”

    Yes, I do agree many ex Christians claim to have abandoned their faith due to the onslaught of militant pseudoscience atheists. But you would have to be very weak in the faith to be bowled over by a spotty 16-year-old lad with a white lab coat on and a laminated badge that says “I’m a scientist like Dawkins.” they use that as an excuse to try to place themselves intellectually above us to stop the conversation. I personally think such as those are best in the other camp anyway. One boy in a school debate even tried to talk like Dawkins, seriously it was pathetic he had the intellectual capacity of a banana too, he didn’t realise when he said to me that he couldn’t prove a negative then what he had just told me is he couldn’t prove his atheism was true. I had to point it out to him twice and then the teacher tried to explain it to him too and he still didn’t get it, that was without me showing him I could prove a negative, which is just a contradiction, after all, isn’t it? Do not be deceived by such as those sir, just explain to them when they are taking their last few breaths, Dawkins doesn’t await them but a mighty God who doesn’t need science since he is science and real science doesn’t deny itself. Nothing will soften their hardened hearts to Jesus since they have never known him as their lord and master, but only as I know the queen of my country and I can tell you if a walk up to the gates of Buckingham Palace and tell the guards, I am Sarah and I know, Queen Elizabeth that will not get me in, what would get me in if queen Elizabeth knew me.

  • Young Miss C has asked if old Mr M tires of her book-length comments. ‘No’ is the reply. However, it becomes ever more clear that when I move on to that big library in the sky, the same Miss C will be the prime candidate to take over CultureWatch!

  • Mr M, that is so sweet of you to say such a thing. I showed your comment to my dad and he said his little girl is turning into a woman before his eyes and its the most terrifying experience a father has to undergo, but its made all the easier knowing there are godly men out there appreciative of his little bundle of trouble. I’m no trouble, he is just joking when he says that.

    I do not think you will be called home any time soon Mr M since even God will take a while to build a library big enough to keep you satisfied for an eternity.

    Be assured Mr M, my husband will be a Mr M, hopefully with a little more hair. I will produce many children, they will be introduced to Mr M senior (that’s you btw) as I have created a folder with lots of your work in not to mention you’re nice comments to me. The boys will be brought up to be strong godly men, my husband will play the major part in that. My daughters will be taught a servant heart and a love for children, and they definitely. won’t be able to wear makeup until they are 16. when I and my husband have completed our task we will meet you in the library.
    S. xx

  • Hi Sarah C, while it is good to see someone your age really getting a handle on this topic. However, I think that you need to reconsider the terminology that you use, or define it more clearly.

    Evolution is simply defined as “change over time”. As things do change over time, evolution is true. However, the Darwinian concept of evolution, molecules to man (what you term Macro Evolution), requires an increase in information within DNA that, as others have said, we simply don’t see. Instead what we mostly see is a loss of information, a shuffling of information, or a passing of information from one species to another. In addition we also see minor changes to information when the mutations don’t have a big effect on a gene. This is what is often meant by “Micro Evolution”, which most of the time is simply natural selection in action. While you may be aware of this, I think it is useful to make it clear, as otherwise it can be used to give the impression of small gains in information along the same lines as Darwinian, or other evolutionary theories, hence Michael’s comments.

    If you like Ravi’s work then may I suggest that you try reading some of Jonathan Sarafati’s work, such as “Refuting Evolution”, “Refuting Compromise” and “ The Greatest Hoax on Earth? – Refuting Dawkins on Evolution”. Jonathan’s use of logical arguments is great, and usually quite entertaining. Jonathan occasionally posts comments on Bill’s blog, just as his colleague, David Catchpoole, also from CMI, has on this topic.

    If you delve into material on CMI’s website you may get a better understanding of why they stress the importance of a recent six day creation, as the other options lead to many issues with other areas of scripture apart from Genesis. This is something that I had to come to understand after I rejected that idea when at Uni. It was too easy to join with other Christians on campus who tried to marry what we were taught in lectures to our faith by making changes in what we believed the Bible verses meant in Genesis.

    It was only when exposed to the issues of that position that I started to think more about it. Then to top it off, because I was studying Applied Biology, in second and third year subjects evolution was taught as being inconsequential to the study of biochemistry and molecular biology. Too many chemical pathways defied the idea of being built up from simpler ones. We had non-Christian lecturers telling us that our theories on how things came to be, not matter which side of the debate we took, was irrelevant to the organisms that we were studying, because such issues were outside of applied science, and that was all that they were interested in.

    Over the years I have seen to many “good Christians” who thought that this area is debatable and that both sides are valid, drift off sound scripture in other areas and then either abandon their faith completely, or buy into fake Christianity. My father had a Scofield Bible (which I now possess), but when it came Genesis he relied on Morris’ “The Genesis Record” (which I now also possess), because he could see the big picture and why Scofield was wrong on Genesis.

    It is not simply a matter of being weak in your faith and being bowled over by someone with a different very view point that causes people to lose their faith. Sometimes it is just the small deviations that can get you well off track. They are harder to pickup on than major ones. In time they can make it easier to jump ship, as you see the contrast between what you call “your faith” and the “real world”.

    This is a big topic and there is always more to learn, so having good resources on hand is vital.

  • Well, it is one thing to show that science goes philosophical when it comes to origin of the universe. But it quite another thing to realise that a worldwide flood make s a far better explanation for geology than the story of millions of years of slow processes. Noah’s flood is a superior model for making fossils at all, having such expansive rock layers, for the lack of erosion between rock layers, the evidence of high speed currents (cross bedding, large tumbled rocks, sediment transport over huge distances), the lack of sea sediment, the seashells on Everest, geomorphology, fossil graveyards… the list goes on and on…
    Of all the most impossible things. How on earth could anyone end up believing Noah’s Flood never happened when the evidence is all around us and impossible to erase?

  • Sarah, you say: “it would be true to say the two main views revolve around the length of days in Genesis where Christians are concerned and what atheist think, who cares?”

    Two main views held by Christians include, AMONGST OTHERS: a) That Genesis describes six explicitly numbered real 24-hour “evening-and-morning” days that occurred around 6,000 years ago and cover the creation of the whole of the universe; and b) The six numbered Genesis “evening-and-morning” days are very long periods of time compatible with billions of years of evolution.

    Other main views are Gap-Theories and Ruin-Reconstruction theories. Both debates in the tinyurl link given earlier are with Christians who believe in 6 literal 24-hour days but who believe some form of Gap-Theory. Where the gaps are is hotly debated, and whether the Universe was created in or before Genesis is debated: some Gap theorists accept 24-hour days and some do not, some claim that Genesis 1:1 should be translated “In the beginning God created the sky and the land” but created the universe and planet Earth earlier, with some claiming Ruin-Reconstruction, some not.

    For my first few years as a Christian I held View b). As an Engineer, I knew many ‘scientific’ arguments supporting that view, but I was very quiet about my faith and had little confidence in defending it. It took several years of reading, including subscribing to a specifically atheistic anti-creation magazine, to slowly move to View a) as being literally true and easier to defend logically and scientifically. My confidence, that I could trust and defend the Bible, increased greatly.

    That’s why I think it misses the point, big time, to say: “what atheists think, who cares?”

    If we don’t care or understand what atheists think and how they criticise Christianity, how can we defend the faith? How can we obey the Great Commission, and/or “always be ready to give a reason for the faith we have”? The top Atheists know that Christians who don’t believe View a) or who have little knowledge of science can be demolished in debate and shown up as illogical to believe contradictions and/or as ignorant of science. Atheists routinely refuse to debate Christians who hold View a) and who have good qualifications in the sciences.

    Restating my previous claim: a significant reason that the West and the Western church are in decline is because the church has lost confidence to defend the Bible that “ … in six days Yahweh made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them … ”.

  • One thing that distinguishes the Bible from other religious books is that, while it does have poetry and parable, it is drenched in history- real people, real places, real times. Attempts to deny its historicity discredit its authority. Some of our legislators go to church but many to do not affirm biblical principles such as sanctity of life and marriage. They effectively don’t follow the Bible. Eg former PM Rudd.

  • >>Mr Newland and Mr Bachelor.
    Sir’s, thank you so much for posting me your advice and recommendations it was much appreciated.

    If I may pick a few of the highlights out and one or two questions.

    The books that were recommended to me were fine recommendations indeed since I have some of those authors on my bookshelf to be read:- this is a selection that I have:

    Refuting Evolution. By Jonathan Sarfati, Phd.

    Refuting Evolution 2. By Jonathan Sarfati, Phd.

    Testing Darwinism. By Philip Johnson.

    Darwin On Trial. By Philip Johnson.

    Evolution The Fossils Still Say No. By Duane Gish.

    Mere Creation By Behe, Berlinski, Johnson and Hugh Ross.

    Dawkins God, genes, memes and the meaning of life. By Allister McGrath.

    I acquire more books than I can read at times. I tend to get through a lot of books on summer break and less so when active in the school term since the school I attend gives two hours of homework each night other than Friday when we get 4 hours. If the homework isn’t in by 9:15 it’s an automatic detention no excuses! I normally complete mine in an hour or so to be honest but sometimes it takes 3 hours! I want “A’s” since it makes my dad proud of me and you want your dad to be proud of you don’t you, well you do when you are a teen anyway.

    I have read ‘Evolution The Fossils Still Say No’. and ‘Dawkins God, genes, memes and the meaning of life’. I haven’t read the one recommended by one of you guys yet, ‘Refuting Evolution’. But I will bring that forward on your recommendation so thank you for that.

    I should say I was amazed you held me in such regard that you offer your advice to me. I am obviously your junior, not to mention female so it’s unlikely I am going to achieve your high standards any time soon if ever since your gifting relates in large part to your gender doesn’t it.

    One of you guys said this:-

    ”Evolution is simply defined as “change over time”. As things do change over time, evolution is true. However, the Darwinian concept of evolution, molecules to man (what you term Macro Evolution), requires an increase in information within DNA that, as others have said, we simply don’t see. Instead what we mostly see is a loss of information, a shuffling of information, or a passing of information from one species to another. In addition, we also see minor changes to information when the mutations don’t have a big effect on a gene. This is what is often meant by “Micro Evolution”, which most of the time is simply natural selection in action. While you may be aware of this, I think it is useful to make it clear, as otherwise it can be used to give the impression of small gains in information along the same lines as Darwinian, or other evolutionary theories, hence Michael’s comments.”

    I completely agree with the above and I will put it in my folder as it is so very succinctly put. I wasn’t aware, however, that DNA information passed from one species to another; perhaps you could explain this with an example for me and does specie = kinds? It seems you are telling me something was actively passed as opposed to common building blocks but maybe I have misunderstood you.

    I think you were all concerned to one degree or another on the “slippery slope out of faith”. I do know of those who I have debated with who have claimed to have once been Christian but lost their faith due to they realising the errors in Genesis. I personally am very suspicious of such claims since Christianity is a relationship based faith, that being, I have a relationship with Jesus that is tangible, beneficial and requires investment. You may realise where you have experienced such as that before and to those of you who are married it should come as no surprise to you it looks a lot like marriage. It would be very odd indeed for someone to divorce her husband on the grounds she believes he doesn’t exist since when he claimed to have built the house the time it took or the order it was built didn’t match some conceived notion of an expert. Her relationship would counter any claim as to her husband’s non-existence.

    So what are we to make of such claims then? Well we all know of the social Christians don’t we, they attend church each week, join in all the social activities and enjoy our company and we enjoy theirs, but they never talk of the sermon over tea after the service, but only of the soaps they have watched, they never seem to grow in the faith, but just stand still and depend on the world. I call such, atheistic Christians and I think some would welcome that label.

    It should be no surprise to us when a nation appears to become secular atheistic over just a few generations. I suspect the social Christians had found “pleasure” in abundance outside the church and no longer needed us as they never did. They are now and always were secular atheists, however, they need to point the finger of blame for their none attendance at the weekly Sunday social club and it was due to the fact they became enlightened and open-minded and we are just still deluded and science deniers. The difference between them and us is simply we have a relationship, that relationship over millennia has been so strong people in huge numbers have chosen to be martyred than deny the relationship.

    What we need to recognise here is that no one was martyred for refusing to deny the six literal days of creation since its the relationship they die for; no different than each and every one of you men would lay down your lives for your wives.

    Now, I am concerned I have somehow indicated to you that your defence of Genesis (scripture) is not appreciated.

    So let me address that so there can be no doubt of the high regard I hold such as you brave soldiers of Christ in.

    It is vital you continue your work in this area if you ever have any doubt as to the value of your task all that you need to do is ask one simple question that requires a 3 leter word, is what I am doing pleasing to God? thats it, it’s that simple my brave and glorious soldiers, so put on the full armour of God and show the fallen the level of your relationship with Jesus since that is what they need isn’t it, and if you ever need a gobby teen in one of your battles I would be proud to share a fox hole with you.
    Sarah. xx

  • Greetings again Sarah. It seems that you have lot of good reading ahead of you. Be aware that Hugh Ross and co, try to marry creation to an evolutionary time scale, just as I used to do. It creates a lot more problems that it solves. “Refuting Compromise” deals extensively with Ross’s ideas.

    It is good to see that your are focused on getting your homework done, as it will help to prepare you for further study. Don’t let being young or female hold you back as, if you are equipped with the right information, you can face up to challenges of those who are older and think that they are more knowledgeable, but remaining humble is crucial. However, be prepared to be dismissed by those who will continue to look down on you no matter how well equipped you are, simply for being young and/or female. My wife and female friends have frequently encountered that situation. Depending on what aspects you are talking about gifting does not necessarily depend on your sex, but its acceptance by others may do so. I have found that some people will accept what I say as a man, but not what my wife (who is one of Bill’s ex-students) says, even though she is more qualified to speak on some areas than I am, and is often my source of information on those matters.

    Lita Cosner now has a prominent role in CMI, even though being a female without science qualifications. Her qualifications in the study of scripture enable her to soundly deal with distortions used to support compromised positions.

    People can, and do, slide away from their faith, even though they once seemed to have a very good relationship with God. It can be hard to understand, especially when you have seen God move mountains in their lives, but it does happen, even to those who have no real excuse for it, think of Judas, but that is a separate topic that Bill has dealt with elsewhere. When “social Christians” loose their faith it is no surprise, as they generally never really had one.

    As for your main question, “I wasn’t aware, however, that DNA information passed from one species to another; perhaps you could explain this with an example for me and does specie = kinds? It seems you are telling me something was actively passed as opposed to common building blocks but maybe I have misunderstood you.” the answer to this is the basis of genetic engineering.

    Information can be passed from one species to another, usually either via viruses, or by plasmid (small “circular” lengths of DNA or RNA) transfer. This occurs in nature and we can do it in the lab. Rose bushes tend to have swelling at the base of the stems. The swellings provide a suitable growth place for bacteria that fix nitrogen (turn atmospheric nitrogen into organic nitrogen that can be used to make proteins etc.). The bacteria stimulates the plant to grow the swellings by passing DNA to the stem cells via a virus. This provides a habitat for the bacteria and nutrients for the plant which provides the bacteria with most of their other needs in return. The bacteria, the virus and the plant all benefit.

    Antibiotic resistance can be passed from one bacterial species to another via the transfer of plasmids between them, along with all sorts of other information, which is what gives rise to “Superbugs”. They don’t evolve (chemically create something new and improved) the ability, they acquire it from other bacteria, or suffer similar mutations that cause damage to biochemical pathways, giving them an advantage in the presence of the antibiotic involved.

    Most of this is regulated by systems in cells, which themselves show design features. By taking advantage of these systems we can now manipulate genetic information in numerous ways with expected results. This is the basis of genetic engineering.

    There is, of course, a lot of genetic exchange between species within kinds, a lot more than evolution’s long ages of species separation would expect. A recent creation explains this a whole lot better. It is exchange that causes concerns with GM products, as the altered genetics can be passed onto related species far more readily than expected, with unexpected results. Species is a construct to better discuss certain related populations of organisms, thus it does not equal kinds, which generally better equates to families of organisms.

    Genetics is an area that we are still learning a lot about. The picture is getting more and more complicated and more difficult to explain within an evolutionary view (not that that prevents attempts made by ignoring the implications of the complexity) due to the number of systems in place to keep it regulated. What used to be only taught at Uni, moved to year 12 and then down the year levels as more information is needed to be built on, so as to support what is currently taught at year 12.

    Keep learning and keep well founded on the Bible, so that you build a strong relationship with its author.

  • The first 11 chapters of Genesis have been described as the “Seed plot of the Bible” since this is where a number of major doctrines are presented for the first time. God is shown as omnipotent creator, revealer, holy judge of sin yet merciful redeemer to the repentant. The book of Genesis is truly the book of origins. Such themes are consistent throughout the Bible

    Archaeology and the Bible are linked through the key field of history.

    The Bible is not a religious text disconnected from reality but rather it is rooted in the reality of flesh and blood lives lived with respect to God or not. Poetry and parable are present but the historical setting is significant throughout. Over and over again archaeology confirms the essential historicity of the Bible records.

    Archaeology is relevant to Bible study in a number of ways such as :

    1. Historicity
    Providing confirmation of the accuracy and integrity of numerous Bible narratives as well as balancing critical theory.

    As Albright said:
    “There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament tradition”.

    Nelson Glueck, the famous Jewish archaeologist, stated that in all of his archaeological investigation he had never found one artifact of antiquity that contradicted any statement of the Bible. The reality and truth of the Bible is in contrast to today’s New Age movement with its evolutionary unreality and confusion.

    2. Local colour and additional facts
    Archaeological data indicate that the setting is authentic and consistent. Religious practices and gods, laws and customs are demonstrated to have been associated with the places and times recorded in the Bible. It can be argued that Bible narratives represent compilation from reliable eye-witness sources.

    Bible interpretation is aided by local colour and supplementary material. Additional facts provided by archaeology assist our understanding of the times and circumstances of the scriptures. These facts include information on physical geography (mountains, lakes, rivers, seas), biology (flora and fauna), geopolitics (empires and cities, rulers and peoples) and culture and customs. The abundance of detailed Bible handbooks, encyclopedias, dictionaries and so on available today are more than ample testimony to this.

    3. Exegesis
    Archaeology assists in the translation, explanation and illustration of the meanings of words and phrases in the Bible through comparison with literature of similar language and period and through fuller historical background.

    4. Demonstrate accuracy of prophecy
    The Bible is set apart from other books of religion in the sheer number and accuracy of fulfilment of its prophecies. This is testimony to it being the Word of God rather than merely containing some nice philosophising! Examples include Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the empires, the destruction of cities such as Tyre and the birthplace of Jesus the Messiah.

  • >>Mark Bachelor
    “Greetings again Sarah. It seems that you have lot of good reading ahead of you. Be aware that Hugh Ross and co, try to marry creation to an evolutionary time scale, just as I used to do. It creates a lot more problems than it solves. “Refuting Compromise” deals extensively with Ross’s ideas”.

    Greeting to you too Mr Bachelor. I do have much reading material but it’s never a burden to me but a gift as I’m sure it is to you. I consider reading the gift of a silent language but the conversation is not punctuated by my contribution that often leads in a direction the author never intended, but it’s more like being silenced by the wise or informed. In my year group at school, many can’t read confidently, so they become trapped by the one who shouts the loudest, which is the TV often. I do not think they realise they have just become an extension of the TV, they have become its useful fools all too often. I often hear someone in class claiming the truth of something since they heard a celebrity uttering some utter nonsense that is patently untrue.

    As regards the conflict across the books above I am sadly one of those people who has to experience first-hand what someone’s assertions are or worldview would be truer perhaps, therefore, I would often read two authors who had different takes on a subject. I read- Richard Dawkins- ‘The God Delusion’ and William Lane Craig’s- ‘On Guard’ alongside each other. That may sound like I am extremely open-minded, I am not, I just believe whatever someone says may be tested using scriptures to see if it’s wholesome. I do not fear opposing views, I just need to have valid arguments against them. Whenever friction occurs between me and an atheist I would remember those who do not live under the law are likely ignorant of it. When it comes to my brother or sister in Christ, I never forget they are my brother and sister in Christ and I am not to do anything other than explain their errors to them, then get the first aid kit out ready to bind their wounds with love. If they do not need such, as their hearts are too hard to be broken I shake the dust off my feet and move on since its important not to make the condition worse, but recoverable by someone else.
    —–
    “It is good to see that you are focused on getting your homework done, as it will help to prepare you for further study”.

    I think it’s important to work as hard as I can as it has four main benefits.

    1. It indicates to those who disbelieve, that what I believe doesn’t hold me back, but propels me forward.

    2. It’s honouring to my dad that his daughter tries her hardest.

    3. I get told off by my dad if I do not strive to achieve.

    4. It really annoys the secular atheistic teachers if a Christians’ hand goes up with the right answer. I need to repent of the joy this brings me . . . . but tomorrow perhaps lol.
    ——
    “Don’t let being young or female hold you back as, if you are equipped with the right information, you can face up to challenges of those who are older and think that they are more knowledgeable, but remaining humble is crucial”.

    I would see certain things as disrespectful, and to be avoided, but not to be avoided if an adult didn’t address the issue, this gets me into a lot of trouble at school, but someone very wise said- evil prospers if Sarah says nothing. Sarah finds saying nothing difficult, even when nothing needs saying lol.
    ——-
    “However, be prepared to be dismissed by those who will continue to look down on you no matter how well equipped you are, simply for being young and/or female”.

    I have to tell you, it’s not easy to dismiss me lol, However, you are so right here sir, its best to know when you have said what needs saying, then stop. MR M is a master at this I think.
    —–
    “My wife and female friends have frequently encountered that situation”.

    I am your friend too, hopefully.
    —–
    “Depending on what aspects you are talking about gifting does not necessarily depend on your sex, but its acceptance by others may do so”.

    Yes, but I am to defer to a male where possible.
    —–
    “I have found that some people will accept what I say as a man, but not what my wife (who is one of Bill’s ex-students) says, even though she is more qualified to speak on some areas than I am, and is often my source of information on those matters”.

    Yes, it is right and proper that your wife speaks via you where possible, as it takes her out of the firing line and she is to be a quiet spirit. I have much work to do in this area; however, it may be I have no work to do when I get a husband, as he will speak for us. When you say Mr M taught your wife do you mean she is his daughter?
    —–
    “Lita Cosner now has a prominent role in CMI, even though being a female without science qualifications”.

    I do not know who Lita is, is she not married presently? I understand what you mean, I think, my dad is a GP and he has receptionists who have no medical qualifications, nor manners since if I ring up sometimes and I want to talk to my dad they say, what is it about Sarah, your dads busy, plainly if it concerned them I would have addressed them directly, still it could be worse, I could be my dad’s receptionist and then he would boss me about all day and when we got home too lol. I think its very important to be married and have children. very, very important.
    —-
    “Her qualifications in the study of scripture enable her to soundly deal with distortions used to support compromised positions”.

    Yes, she is allowed to do that as long as she does not use it to exercise authority over a man. I think it would be best really to not impose on her such if she wanted to work with children however.
    —-
    “People can, and do, slide away from their faith, even though they once seemed to have a very good relationship with God”.

    How could you fall out of a relationship with God? It would be like falling out of a relationship with a parachute at 100 meters. Do you mean they have a bad relationship with God instead?
    —-
    “It can be hard to understand, especially when you have seen God move mountains in their lives, but it does happen, even to those who have no real excuse for it, think of Judas, but that is a separate topic that Bill has dealt with elsewhere. When “social Christians” lose their faith it is no surprise, as they generally never really had one”.

    Yes, but, Judas is our example not to, not our example too.
    —–
    “As for your main question, “I wasn’t aware, however, that DNA information passed from one species to another; perhaps you could explain this with an example for me and does specie = kinds? It seems you are telling me something was actively passed as opposed to common building blocks but maybe I have misunderstood you.” the answer to this is the basis of genetic engineering”.

    “Information can be passed from one species to another, usually either via viruses, or by plasmid (small “circular” lengths of DNA or RNA) transfer. This occurs in nature and we can do it in the lab. Rose bushes tend to have swelling at the base of the stems. The swellings provide a suitable growth place for bacteria that fix nitrogen (turn atmospheric nitrogen into organic nitrogen that can be used to make proteins etc.). The bacteria stimulate the plant to grow the swellings by passing DNA to the stem cells via a virus. This provides a habitat for the bacteria and nutrients for the plant which provides the bacteria with most of their other needs in return. The bacteria, the virus and the plant all benefit”.

    Oh, that is amazing thank you. I need to just step this out.

    1. A virus or Plasmid. is a plasmid another name for a virus or a type of virus.

    2. The Virus/Plasmid transfers to some other DNA structure (roses).

    3. This Virus/Plasmid task is to transfer atmospheric nitrogen into organic nitrogen which may be used to make proteins in its host.

    4. This occurs in nature and we can do it in the lab.

    5. Rose bushes tend to have swelling at the base of the stems.

    6. The swellings area provides a suitable growth place for bacteria.

    7. That turns atmospheric nitrogen into organic nitrogen.

    8. 7’s outcome is proteins.

    9. This provides a habitat for the bacteria and nutrients for the plant which provides the bacteria with most of their other needs in return.

    10. The bacteria, the virus and the plant all benefit.

    Ok, this is new knowledge for me to store in my folder, thank you so much for explaining it so well for me, not to mention the others who read your comment.

    Right, so the Rose plants purpose in life is so a boy may bring me 10 red Roses. (just kidding you sir) In this case, the rose doesn’t acquire the new information to pass on to its offspring it’s just ensuring it produces seeds for the next generating of little baby roses by taking advantage of me wanting 10 red roses, as much as the virus providing growth help. What I am saying is the rose hasn’t evolved, it just depends on me wanting 10 red roses and a virus who is a little more generous than the boy who buys the rosebuds which encourages the florist to purchase rosebuds from the grower, in fact, you could say, the same virus is helping the boy to win me over so I will help pass on his genes. The rose plant, if put in isolation from the friendly virus would still grow (perhaps slower). The boy without the 10 buds will still pass on his DNA, albeit with new tactics, which I’m quite sure he has many available to him.

    I would not see that as an example of evolution since its more cooperation. Evolution to me would be the rose plant evolving the ability to grow faster without the aid of the virus. This schoolgirl is thinking if you replaced (and I mean this with no disrespect obviously.) virus with God then you have just proved evolution by saying the plant evolved with the cooperation of God.

    The explanation isn’t, virus, it’s only the method used if you follow my point or maybe I am making your point for you.
    ——
    “Antibiotic resistance can be passed from one bacterial species to another via the transfer of plasmids between them, along with all sorts of other information, which is what gives rise to “Superbugs”. They don’t evolve (chemically create something new and improved) the ability, they acquire it from other bacteria, or suffer similar mutations that cause damage to biochemical pathways, giving them an advantage in the presence of the antibiotic involved”.

    Isn’t it the case that its just ‘microevolution?’ I understand you do not like that word, but I use it to describe something like the following- all men overnight suddenly only want to mate with blonds from Scotland. This produces an outbreak of babies in Scotland. Girl babies, born who are not blond remain spinsters (I hate that word) eventually we have a majority of blonds in Scotland, but we still have brunets. Overnight the fussy men only want to mate with brunets and the cycle starts again. Note only babies are born and they are held in some sort of limited variability. I.e. we never see macroevolution only micro, and micro is there in, Genesis- Let the earth bring forth . . . .
    ——
    “Most of this is regulated by systems in cells, which themselves show design features. By taking advantage of these systems we can now manipulate genetic information in numerous ways with expected results. This is the basis of genetic engineering”.

    Yes, I think they can grow ears in the lab, can’t they?
    —–
    “There is, of course, a lot of genetic exchange between species within kinds, a lot more than evolution’s long ages of species separation would expect. A recent creation explains this a whole lot better. It is exchange that causes concerns with GM products, as the altered genetics can be passed onto related species far more readily than expected, with unexpected results. Species is a construct to better discuss certain related populations of organisms, thus it does not equal kinds, which generally better equates to families of organisms”.

    Yes, I gathered Species was something different since atheists liked to try to get me to describe certain relationships. Plainly atheists are in no position to ask me to explain anything, until they have answered my first question as we are not going to discuss my dad’s vegetable garden since first I want them to tell me who provided the seeds, soil not to mention the gardener and I do not discuss a subject from its centre, but from its beginning. I think I would do that even if I were an atheist.
    —–
    “Genetics is an area that we are still learning a lot about. The picture is getting more and more complicated and more difficult to explain within an evolutionary view (not that that prevents attempts made by ignoring the implications of the complexity) due to the number of systems in place to keep it regulated. What used to be only taught at Uni, moved to year 12 and then down the year levels as more information is needed to be built on, so as to support what is currently taught at year 12”.

    Yes, this is just what my science teacher said to me. He said evolution isn’t in its own right able to explain life and its very, very complicated, and I thought without God yes.
    ——
    “Keep learning and keep well founded on the Bible, so that you build a strong relationship with its author”.

    Sir, I was born into Christianity. I was tempted away when my mum’s life was taken by a drunken driver but, Jesus held onto me, even when I let him go in my anger and frustration. I live in an environment where I am the enemy and all that I have to do is deny Jesus and I can have everything I want, but the only thing I want is what was offered to my sister Eve, so the world can take me on if it wants, but it better remember my Father owns the world, not them, and my Father knows me by my first name, those of the world he has told of them they won’t be needing a name in their eternity they will just spend forever repeating the same meaningless task over and over again. Therefore, world, I will not shut up, put up or give up, but worst for the world I intend to multiply.

    Thank you so much for taking the time to explain the above to me, sir, be assured it will figure in my science homework at some point and I will get the “A” and I will give you a thank you now. Thank you, kind sir. . .

    Sarah xx.

    Ps to Mr M, if you think this post is long blame, Mr Bachelor since as usual, I am completely innocent of everything.

  • Our culture explicitly teaches millions of years but the.Bible does not explicitly teach millions of years. As a geologist I know of no geological process that requires deep time.

  • Hi Sarah,

    “I am completely innocent of everything.” Lol. “Methinks the lady protesteth too much,” including re the place of women. However: women’s brain structure is different on average (“Brain Sex” Moir & Jessel); unborn girls move their lips more frequently than unborn boys; women are better at multi-tasking; etc, but that does not stop God from using women in leading men in the correct direction, not only by influence (the neck that turns the ‘head’) but also by direct authority over men.

    Talking of talking/writing: being succinct takes more work, and more time, but it also means that more people will read/listen to your opinion. But beware of descending to the opposite extreme of ‘sound bites’ with little substance.

    I agree with others re Hugh Ross’ inconsistency. William Lane Craig is weak on Genesis. But read what they say, and also read what creation.com, icr.org etc have to say. That way you are better equipped to make a sound decision and to defend your case.

    Book/DVDs, not mentioned above, I wish my 9 granddaughters would read/watch:

    History (not the dry sort):

    “Patterns of Evidence – Exodus” 2014 DVD re-assessing Ancient Egyptian chronology matches, rather than contradicts, Biblical chronology.

    “After the Flood: the early post-flood history of Europe traced back to Noah,” and
    “The Authenticity of the Book of Genesis,” both by Bill Cooper.

    “How Christianity Changed the World,” Alvin J Schmidt.

    “How God Saved Civilisation: the epic story of God leading his people, the church,” James L Garlow.

    “How the West WON: the neglected story of the triumph of Modernity,” Rodney Stark.

    “The Book that made your world: how the Bible created the soul of Western civilisation,” Vishal Mangalwadi.

    Science

    “DNA Battles: were Adam & Eve historical?” 2018 DVD: Robert Carter et al: Mitochondrial Eve is dated by secular scientists as living about 6,000 years ago.

    “Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of The Genome”, J C Sanford: basically the human genome is heading for extinction so fast that it indicates recent origin. A similar DVD is available.

    Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels” Edited by Robert Carter. Book & DVD versions.

    “Evolution: A theory in Crisis” Michael Denton. A quote from Ch.12 “At a molecular level, no organism is ‘ancestral’ or ‘primitive’ or ‘advanced’ compared to its relatives.” I.e. there is no molecular evidence of an evolutionary connection between different life forms.

  • Hi Mr Newland,
    “Methinks the lady protesteth too much,” including re the place of women. However: women’s brain structure is different on average (“Brain Sex” Moir & Jessel); unborn girls move their lips more frequently than unborn boys; women are better at multi-tasking; etc, but that does not stop God from using women in leading men in the correct direction, not only by influence (the neck that turns the ‘head’) but also by direct authority over men.”

    I wanted Mr M to know that I was responding to a comprehensive post that required me to leave Mr B, comments in for clarity.

    It’s very easy to understand why I talk more than boys. It’s because boys generally do not want to talk about things they can’t change, and I think they can change everything so I want to talk about what I want to change, boys can give the impression they are listening to me, but they only hear the parts they want to hear often. I think husbands do this too.

    I will, again, reluctantly, on your advice attempt to use my “authority” over the male Makeup denier then, but I have tried many times before and his general response is to deny- “My direct authority over men”. I did try, since God said so, but maybe if I say since, “Mr Newland said so” will make the difference. I will let you know how it goes, it may be a while since I have a lot to say on this subject to my dad and he only uses the words, No, grounded, go to your room, or if I get off lightly go make me a cup of tea sweetness. Should you not hear from me for a while, it won’t have been, go make me a cup of tea sweetness.

    Mr Newland, Sir, Lol I can’t begin to describe to you how foreign female authority over men sounds to me. It would be the equivalent of me getting up for school in the morning and my dad saying, Sweetness don’t bother with school today, take my card and go buy yourself makeup, the shortest skirt you can find, stay out till late, and a little alcohol is good for you so consume as much as you can.

    “Talking of talking/writing: being succinct takes more work, and more time, but it also means that more people will read/listen to your opinion. But beware of descending to the opposite extreme of ‘sound bites’ with little substance”.

    Yes, it is a real skill both from the application and from the denial of the instinct I think. Just to be clear, I am, guilty as charged and do need to work on my emulation of Mr M work, but my old English teacher told my dad to just let me scroll the screen by adding more and more words since a developing creativity is stifled by limiting the 500 words that you have to read to get to the gem that you have read, and read over again as you have no idea how that was inside her.

    “I agree with others re Hugh Ross’ inconsistency. William Lane Craig is weak on Genesis. But read what they say, and also read what creation.com, icr.org etc have to say. That way you are better equipped to make a sound decision and to defend your case”.

    I think it’s important to do so since most people have important things to say and I think if you have to read some of what you disagree with, somewhere in the disagreement often there is something you may learn.
    Further, it’s not always bad to have what you hold, tested by someone else’s thoughts and ideas. I think the very young should be protected from bad Ideas, bad ideas are those things your dad says are bad ideas. I, of course, am very mature and not a child, so am able to decide for myself, unless my dad says otherwise.

    “Book/DVDs, not mentioned above, I wish my 9 granddaughters would read/watch”:

    9 granddaughters, you are so blessed, sir, are they walking with the Lord? what is the age range and do you have G-sons too? Are any of them, little babies?

    I spoke to a man in church this morning, who is like you, very interested in the sovereignty of Genesis. He agreed the books recommended by Mr B were suitable for me, but he recommended I read- ‘Refuting Compromise’ By J Sarfati first, which was on Mr B list. He gave me a copy which he said I may keep. I do have- “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis” by Michael Denton. It’s either on my kindle or I have it in book form that I have lent out and not got back! I have read much of that book as I have quoted from it in previous years EOTP quite extensively. The man in church also recommended to you- NephilimFree if you are not already aware of him he said if you put “NephilimFree” into YT search you will find him.

    Thank you so much for taking the time to advise me, Mr Newland, it is much appreciated.

    Sarah xx.

  • A day is a day not millions of years.

  • Hi Sarah,
    It’s not only boys who don’t want to talk! I’d be delighted to have more granddaughters like you who are keen to talk about Jesus. Children and grandchildren give one good practice in forgiving, perseverance and prayer – makes you realise how God feels when we ignore him and/or do foolish things. With no grandsons, but granddaughters from 15-25 perhaps they will produce sons.

    Sarah, if you’re true to yourself, you’re too good to be true: makeup with the makeup denier is a good approach – after all natural is better than fake, while modestly in dress and a clear mind should present the authentic you to others, especially to Mr. Right.

  • I’ve now looked briefly at some nephilim videos. Not recognising the YT abbreviation, I first found anti-nephilim videos, including one about crocoduck or similar awards for the most stupid creationist won by the author of the nephilim videos. The anti-videos tended to demolish straw men arguments but could easily mislead anyone who doesn’t know their Bible and science. Interestingly the winner received several thousand votes from the atheists voters while DR. J Safarti received only 8, if I remember correctly: in other words, atheists have a hard time trying to refute Safarti, who often publishes in the peer-reviewed Journal of Creation, but they find the nephilim author, who seems to be a one-man-band, an easy target.

    When I did find his YT videos, the nephilim guy had a C-Decay video whereas decades ago C-Decay was listed as an “Argument Creationists should NOT use”. He also has disputed topics such as the duration of hell and Calvinism which have no connection to his nephilim name. Overall, I think the nephilim guy should not be recommended to the naive, rather is best avoided and instead point people to peer-reviewed creationist communities such as CMI and ICR and of course the Bible. The best way to recognise error is to be thoroughly familiar with the genuine rather than studying misrepresentations or forgeries.

  • Hi Mr Newland,

    “It’s not only boys who don’t want to talk! I’d be delighted to have more granddaughters like you who are keen to talk about Jesus”.

    Well, sir, if your granddaughters are failing in this area then your granddaughters (kate and I) in Christ are always available.

    “Children and grandchildren give one good practice in forgiving, perseverance and prayer – makes you realize how God feels when we ignore him and/or do foolish things”.

    My dad often tells me parents need the patience of a saint. It’s hard for me to believe my dad was once one of those silly boys in my class at school, but my grandmother assures me he was.

    “With no grandsons, but granddaughters from 15-25 perhaps they will produce sons”.

    I think the odds of them doing so are very high indeed lol.

    “Sarah, if you’re true to yourself, you’re too good to be true: makeup with the makeup denier is a good approach – after all, natural is better than fake, while modestly in dress and a clear mind should present the authentic you to others, especially to Mr Right”.

    You have the dad lines in a holster on your hip, ready to draw at the first teen to pass you by Lol. Wearing makeup isn’t just to make me look prettier, it’s an acknowledgement from my dad I am now a young woman and not a child any longer and it tells the boys that I have finished practising with my doll’s house and dolls and it’s now time to marry and put those things into practice, then and only then will my dad see the fruits of his work and time spent in me, otherwise, I am nothing more than a good girl since I am being closely policed perhaps.

    Perhaps look on makeup as your acknowledgement of my maturity to do good or evil with. I will use it to momentarily stun a boy so I have the opportunity to sell my character to him. You have perhaps forgotten what drew you to your wife first perhaps. If I ask my dad about meeting my mum for the first time he always mentions her looks first, he said she was the most beautiful creature he had ever seen, then he mentions her other attributes. I think perhaps you are using your maturity to view the past, remember my husband will be a young Christian man full of errors, which will take years to get out before he reaches your level.

    To appeal to your science side, boys, do not seek to look at images of, “modestly dressed, clear-minded girls”, they look to see flesh. I and other Christian girls have to navigate a road where we at the end of it finish up in a church hand in hand with a Christian boy, pure of body and heart. Remember the secular girls offer those same boys their heart’s desire and worse some “Christian” girls do too. We Christian girls face the challenges with one hand tied behind our backs. To even get on that road I need my dad to see me as a young woman who he has finished his child training with. Now he has to spend the next 10 years worrying, not so much acting. I have had the fire drill and I understand a fire drill isn’t the same, as a fire and I understand that road will have many manipulative men on, but I also understand not to be ruled by my feelings but by what God wants from me as his envoy.

    Some 18-year-old girls are not as mature as me and some 13-year-olds are more mature than me. I would rather have the opportunity to make the mistakes in my next phase still under my dad’s watchful eye so I have the best of both, then he can let me go into the world ready to do my father’s bidding, both of them.

    I think perhaps there is more than one Mr Right for me, as I am very loveable, well, the militant atheist boys do not think so, but what they think is irrelevant. There are a few nice boys in my church any one of those would be fine as far as I’m concerned; I obviously have a favourite, as he seems to like children which is very important to me as I’m not only selecting a husband, but a father for our children to. I have a responsibility to my children to choose a very good father for them, as much as I choose a good husband for myself. I want a strong man too as he will need to be as between us we are to wave the flag of Christianity in a world that detests it, and ensuring we produce the next generation to do likewise.

    I was really encouraged while I was away representing my school in a music contest between our schools. One of the venues was in a beautiful church known for its brilliant acoustics. The warden of that beautiful church told me it took 280 years to build. I thought that is like us, we are building something to pass on to the next generation that we will not see completed, the last but one, generation will get so close they will be a Moses in that respect perhaps.

  • Mr Newland,
    I’m not sure in what context Mr Sanders (the man at my church) suggested Nephilim to you, to be honest, he didn’t, for instance, recommend I view his videos he suggested I read the book he gave me ‘refuting Evolution’ by Jonathan Safarti PhD.

    I personally would not put much value on what an atheist thought on these matters, after all, they are faulty so vessels for destruction. Plainly that voting relates to how annoyed they were with each individual or possibly how well those individuals were known to the voters. It could have been 100% of the atheist who knew Jonathan Sararti voted for him and there were 8 of them. I suspect Nephilim goes out of his way to upset dawkins little puppies perhaps, where JS is more a scholar so is involved in academia more than YouTube where the militant atheist hang around for their victims.

    The other thing I have observed with many of the militant atheists is that their god is those in academia so although they hate Christians they admire, PhD, that is where their self-worth is tied to, that’s why I never show them any respect since respect is what they crave. They, murder babies, destroy countries and have a poor fatherhood rate. Now I come to think about it that’s why I dislike them so much.

    I have started reading that book, Mr Sanders gave me and you guys recommended and it’s actually very good. When I have finished reading it my science teacher said he would like to read it.

    If I see Mr Sanders in church tomorrow I will ask him what he thinks about, Nephilim out of interest.

    Thank you so much for your post it’s nice to communicate with those who have a special interest in certain aspects of defending our faith, not to mention, being willing to encourage those my age. If you need, granddaughters and your own are not available or none communitive; just contact me or Katie anytime.

    Sarah xx.

  • “To appeal to your science side, boys, do not seek to look at images of, ‘modestly dressed, clear-minded girls’, they look to see flesh.”

    Reminds me of the Mufti’s comment re raw cat meat. Males looking for flesh are less likely to see past their lust to see the person. Is that what you want? Even old guys like me notice the curves and cleavage but we have to, or should, consciously discipline our eyes to ignore the cleavage etc and concentrate on the person rather than on bare flesh or the facade of powder and paint.

    No, I have not forgotten what drew me to my wife first. It was the necessity to get a partner for the Engineering Ball: she looked great and she even spoke well (I avoided the sexy looking ones but some who looked great ruined it as soon as they opened their mouths). I couldn’t believe my luck when this gorgeous girl agreed to go with me – we could talk about things together with neither dominating the conversation. Neither of us were Christians, but we became Christians together, shortly after we married: and we are still vey much “works in progress” after 55 years together.

    Also please be wary of online contacts and giving too much detail re names: those named may not be comfortable being named. Name and other details may be clues for stalkers. But then maybe you are a 40 y.o. policeman practicing his skills to trap stalkers! But, seriously, I avoided giving details of my grand-daughters to protect their privacy.

    It’s sweet of you to offer as an honorary granddaughter, but Bill’s blog is not geared for that and you should make no direct contact without your fathers’ and Bill’s approvals.

  • Please pray for a revolution in geoscience such that the plain reading of the Bible is respected again, rather than regarded as myth. May there be a return to biblical principles and a global Christian revival.

  • Mr Newland,
    “Reminds me of the Mufti’s comment re raw cat meat. Males looking for flesh are less likely to see past their lu….”

    Ok, what you have achieved here is to point out the cause from logic and reason, not to mention your own experience, then having done so you then attempt to add powder and paint, which has been added in unnecessarily since you didn’t need to go there since you had already identified the problem which was men’s eyes and lustful hearts.

    On the one hand, you rightly point out that men’s eyes are driven to the flesh. Then, you attempt, to add powder and paint. The truth is men are drawn to the flame, irrespective if the female had makeup on or not. Your argument falls down since the boys in my class consider me the prettiest girl in the class since no girl in school is allowed to wear makeup, yet some still do, when those girls are outside of school they can and do surpass me in the boy’s desirability. In school, I am not a slut for being one of the prettiest girls I was just made that way; in fact, I may in another culture figure as not pretty at all. The girls outside the school who wear makeup are the same girls as in class, but they are more attractive to boys with makeup, but just as importantly they look more mature and less like a child with makeup. I do agree with your underlying comment that powder and paint is a façade, it’s the clown having to makeup to be what he naturally isn’t, but of course, the same could be said for clothes and hairstyles. I think girls hide behind makeup and boys come to find the girl. If they find the makeup and not the girl then they have found what matches their observational ability, so the girl before him or a picture of a girl would both serve his needs perhaps.

    “No, I have not forgotten what drew me to my wife first. It was the necessity to get a partner for the Engineering Ball: she looked great and she even spoke well (I avoided the se……”

    55 years Mr Newland, that is something to not only be proud of but something to show the world. Your granddaughters will use you as the counter to divorce in a secular society even if it’s only me and Katie at this time. I note with interest, like my dad, when you praise your gf – wife you start with her looks then move to her character. Further, I bet you would have considered your date as sexy as those you rejected, but she would have had an extra quality that appealed to you. Those other “sexy” ladies were simply selling what they had, many girls in my class would not be able to hold a conversation like you and I are doing now, they would talk of fashions, boys or celebrities at a superficial level, their top talking point would be relationships which would be based on nothing but their feelings or what they call love, they seek first and foremost to be loved, not to love. If I were to say to one of them I am to respect my husband as my top priority, they would say you mean love him and I would say yes, but that’s not former, it’s the latter. What they mean by love is sexual attraction. Sexual attraction is one part of something much bigger, that on its own, isn’t enough but its nonetheless one of the building blocks that is used to initiate a relationship that finishes in standing before God, pure in body and heart so the sexual attraction can produce a family of warriors for Christ.

    “Also please be wary of online contacts and giving too much detail re names: those named may not be comfortable being named. Name and other details may be clues for stalkers. But then maybe you are a 40 y.o. policeman practising his skills to trap stalkers! But, seriously, I avoided giving details of my grand-daughters to protect their privacy.
    It’s sweet of you to offer as an honorary granddaughter, but Bill’s blog is not geared for that and you should make no direct contact without your fathers’ and Bill’s approvals.”

    Hmm, how do I approach this while maintaining your trust and goodwill I am wondering.

    Ok, let me just jump in since I think you will understand my reasoning.

    We are part of Christendom, that is, you are a Christian communicating on a Christian blog to another Christian. All those on these threads are to one degree or another Christian, not only are they Christian, but the book thief keeps the Christians, Christian, heaven knows what he does to the none Christians lol. If we want to improve the culture, we must demonstrate we are able to maintain a Christian culture that is beneficial to the flourishing of individuals and particularly tomorrow’s adults. I am safe in Christendom (CultureWatch) since it’s my family’s home. I am your sister in Christ and I have elevated myself to great-granddaughter in Christ as a mark of respect for your greater wisdom and holding fast to Christ for 50+ years. It isn’t optional, it’s just part of Christendom and the world needs to see that. You have to ensure my safety in Christendom along with the other adults, simply by being what you claim to be which is- Christian, You must also give me credit and have the expectation I will behave like a Christian and have the moral understanding that goes with that. You, as a Christian man, who has Christian values that not only means something but has to demonstrate something too, likewise, I as a Christian teen have values that mean something and demonstrate something too. I am not just another annoying teen I am a member of your family, albeit in Christ. I, as a Christian girl, have been Christianised, in other words, I can detect something in you that is different than a secular man your age, and likewise, you should detect something in me different than a secular girl my age. If those things can’t be found, then Christendom does not exist. I can go further, what Mr M rejects from Christendom is the lacking of those attributes. It isn’t necessarily safer in Christendom since wolves dressed as sheep could get through. What is different is that I am in a family environment where as part of being brought up as a Christian girl I understand what is right and proper for my brothers and sisters behaviour, remember I have a view of the family not taken out of secularism but Christendom. If one of my brothers was to suggest, immorality was morality I would explain his error to him since as a Christian girl I have been taught to detect such errors. Christendom has to be different than the world otherwise we can’t criticise a godless culture if our own isn’t any better. we can’t wish Christendom to be better we have to make it better then bath in it. To this end, I demand Christendom and my family that goes with it. I will for my part behave as you would expect one of your great-granddaughters to behave and if I do not, you do what g-g-dads do. We have got to build Christendom from the ground up and it starts with me and you Great-granddad.

    I will briefly cover the points I have missed. the police in the UK would not concern themselves with the safety of white Christian teen girls. they concern themselves with political correctness and pandering to minorities. imagine giving the far left the ability to create the police force, well that is what we have. If I had a serious problem I would not seek a police officer I would seek my dad or brother since they have concern for my wellbeing the police do not. (that is why Christendom is so important to me).

    I would not expect you to give any details of your family. I refuse to live in fear since I would have a long time to live that way. I would fear to get others into trouble or create problems for them. I fully intend when I am old enough to get active in saving little babies since I think that is the most important issue for Christians to help solve. it could be solved in a year if we could bring Christendom together even consider bringing Islam in on the battle. once that had been achieved we would need to get Christendom active in the culture since we are likely to have for some time teens pregnant and unable to be mothers, women who just hate what is inside them. Christendom is going to have to work to end pregnancy outside marriage as its top priority then teach

    GGD Sarah. xx

  • Dear Sarah, it’s a great honour to have an honorary honourable GGD like you! A breath of fresh air. My youngest GD is almost 15, so maybe you are a GD too, albeit a great one. I was at a loss re how to reply, so apologies for the late reply. But really it’s an acknowledgement rather than a reply. But then the books say that men need to learn that they don’t necessarily need to answer or fix everything, just acknowledge that they have heard the heart of the women in their lives. Reminds me of Mark Gungor’s description of the inside of women’s skulls being a delicious confusing mass of intertwined spaghetti whereas men tend to have a filing cabinet where only one file at a time can be opened.

    While we have strayed way outside Bill’s topic, your comments re abortion reminds me of Bill’s very recent article re aggressive vegans who violently oppose animal slaughter yet do not protest that living babies are routinely dismembered in the womb. The world needs an army of Sarahs to help revive Christendom – “’till he comes”. Meanwhile we shouldn’t clog Bill’s site with off-topic stuff, but I’m happy to respond if you want to contact me direct via info in the tinyurl link posted above. GPa Peter

  • GGDad, If an adult communicates with a teen at all it is amazing and I understand why it’s because communicating with someone immature to yourself is hard work or at least it takes patience. When I babysit I experience what adults experience when they talk with me, however, I love children so it isn’t a burden to me as it would be to a man, since men tend not to love random children and most would have children of their own who need their time and patience.

    A man at my church summed up a man’s attitude to children that made me think how amazing some men are, he said the following to my question- did he ever consider having seven children instead of six-

    He said- “if I had my time over again I wouldn’t have any children, yet if anyone tried to take my children from me I would kill them”.

    Do not consider for one moment I thought negatively of you, as I did not. I considered you said what you wanted to say and gave me the opportunity to say what I wanted to say and I respected you so much for that, that I elevated you to GGD and the fact you had been married and godly for so long too. I believed that I could have contacted you at any time and you would have responded to me, which is born out in your post so I am a good judge of character to add to my other exceptional talents lol.

    I would offer my GGDad this advice. if your GGDaughter is not causing any trouble on Mr M’s comments section and she isn’t bothering you, go to your room and thank God peace and tranquillity exists. . . for now anyway lol.

    As regards the female brain and men’s brains, someone once said this- A man tends to ignore what a woman says to him if what she says to him he can do nothing about, women, especially daughters tend to think the males in her life can do anything. I think the above is true and I think it’s true because in the distant past a man would have had to be alert to danger all the time, so he would have had to shut out his daughter Sarah, who wouldn’t shut up for a moment.

    I certainly will take your contact details from above so I may contact you if I need your assistance on a thread where your expertise would be of great help.

    Thanks for your post-GGDad,

    we will talk again soon.

    Sarah xx.

Leave a Reply