Really …6 Days to Create the World

photo credit:

Short, quick, logical reads
with meaningful content.

One of the major questions that is always asked when the subject of creation is brought up is … Do you really believe that the earth was created in six days? Well, yes, actually I do! It’s stated specifically in Genesis And Exodus (Gen 1, Ex 20:11, Ex 31:17). Many people have said that a day really isn’t a day. I deal with that in this blog as well. The verse 2 Peter 3:16 talks about unstable people twisting scripture.

You may wonder how I can make the statement that the earth was created in six days with full confidence and assurance. For me, the reason is quite simple. The Bible says it!

However, there are people who claim to believe the Bible who disagree. They say that the Bible can’t be taken “literally.” It’s their opinion that each “day” that the Bible talks about actually refers to a very long period of time.

photo credit:

And by long periods of time, I mean millions, even billions of years! The proponents of this thinking will tell you that the Bible used easy to understand terms rather than lengthy explanations about how long it took to create each aspect of the earth. They believe that God used “natural” events to create what we see. What makes this thinking so disturbing is that either God is capable of creating the universe and all that is in it or He isn’t! Why would God not just say it took billions of years to create if it did? Therefore, to begin with it makes no sense for God to use deceptive language in the Bible. It either took six days to create the world or it didn’t.

The word “day” is quite clearly what God intended to have written. It wasn’t a mistake or just a vague term that God wanted used in the explanation of the creation of the world. He wanted the term “day” used and he used the term each time certain aspects of creation were completed. In fact the term “day” is introduced to us in Genesis. Therefore, this term “day” can’t be being used symbolically. We have to be quite familiar with a term for it to be meaningfully used symbolically. Surely, if God didn’t mean a literal “day”, He wouldn’t have used it six times referring to the creation. In none of those six times did God go into an in-depth discussion about how the word actually meant something much more complicated. He didn’t use the word “like” a day. He used the word day which to just about anyone has a very specific meaning. Not only did God intend to use the word “day”, He went on to further describe exactly what He meant by that word. Even though in any other book or treatise about anything other the creation of the world would there be reason to have further described what was meant by the word “day.”

photo credit:

I will conclude this discussion by showing how clear God wanted to be about a “day” being a 24 hour day by quoting Scripture. The first quote is Genesis 1:5 NKJV “God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.” Again God made it clear in Genesis 1:8 NKJV “And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.” Then again in Genesis 1:13 God says it a third time “So the evening and the morning were the third day.” And just to drive home the point God used the phrase “evening and the morning” (NKJV Genesis 1:19, 23, & 31) three more times referring to the fourth, fifth and sixth days of creation. If you still doubt that God meant to say it took six days for creation … there’s not much more I can say! 

Please consider buying something through the merchant links presented here on this site as this will help ensure I can continue shedding light on important topics. Thank you.
The blogs that I do are a result of compiling information gathered from sources considered reliable and of course the Bible which is totally reliable.


Danger: Your Child’s Science Class!

photo credit:

Short, quick, logical reads
with meaningful content.

You’re probably thinking that your child’s science class is conducted with the teacher having an open mind. You also, most likely, assume your child is being taught proven fact as just that proven fact and those ideas that are only theories will be taught as what they are just theories. Unfortunately, that is not the case in the overwhelming majority of classrooms across the United States.

When it comes to the subject of evolution, the discussion of proven facts seems to be ignored in most classrooms today. The age of the earth and the universe are integral to the explanation of the theory of evolution.

Therefore, if the documentation for the age of the earth is based on flawed science the entire theory of evolution falls apart. And the key methodology for dating the age of the earth is radiometric dating. This link will take you to my blog regarding the fallacy of this dating methodology. After reading that blog, it’s clear to see how critical it is to understand the underlying assumptions of any scientific  statement.

photo credit:

The proponents of evolution spend an inordinate amount of time presenting complex formulas and performing numerous complex calculations. However, these same evolution champions spend almost no time explaining what assumptions must be accepted for any of those mathematical gymnastics to have any meaning at all.

It’s important that you know what your child is being taught in school. Like any religion, evolution should be either taught outside of public school systems or taught alongside Biblical accounts of creation. Both understandings of how the universe came into existence should be explained to students so that  they can evaluate the teachings and make their own decision as to which account they believe.

photo credit: pixabay

A good way for you to know what your child is being taught is to ask your children to bring their science books home. That way you can look through them to see for yourself what they are being taught. If you find questionable content you can arrange for a meeting with your child’s science teacher. You don’t need to be concerned about being confrontational as all you need to do is ask questions to determine how your child’s science teacher approaches the subject of evolution. Does he/she just assume evolution is true or is the topic presented in an objective manner? Or you can suggest to the teacher that both theories require faith. Evolution requires faith in a couple of critical areas.

The first area where faith is necessary is in the area of where did the matter come from that created the universe. Both evolutionists and creationists accept by faith that matter existed in the beginning. Evolutionists believe it just somehow appeared while creationists believe that God created it.

photo credit:

Also, both viewpoints must accept the fact that “life” happened. Evolutionists take by faith that a single celled organism just appeared out of nowhere while creationists take by faith that God created “life” by creating plants, animals, and Adam and Eve.

As you can see, both the theory of evolution and the creation viewpoint require faith. Evolution would most appropriately be categorized as a religion. Therefore, both evolution and creationism could appropriately be taught outside of the public school system or within it as different viewpoints of faith. Clearly this approach would not be an establishment of a religion, but merely the study of what already exists.
Both viewpoints are religious in nature. In fact, any viewpoint that relates to how the world was created is a religious or faith based view. Yes, in 1957 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Secular Humanism is a non-theistic religion within the meaning of the First Amendment! - Discover Christian Gifts from the Holy Land

Please consider buying something through the merchant links presented here on this site as this will help ensure I can continue shedding light on important topics. Thank you.
The blogs that I do are a result of compiling information gathered from sources considered reliable and of course the Bible which is totally reliable.


The Fallacy of Radiometric Dating

photo credit:

Short, quick, logical reads
with meaningful content.

Contrary to what you may be thinking, radiometric dating is not the latest romantic hookup site. Radiometric dating is a method that dates rocks and other objects by using the known decay rate of radioactive isotopes. The rate at which these substances decay is known as radioactive decay. This is the process that allows an unstable atomic nucleus to lose energy by releasing radiation. I should point out at this point that one of the basic assumptions in the radiometric dating theory is that radioactive elements will decay at a constant rate. This is a very important and extreme assumption since this theory is being relied upon to date items that are billions of years old.

Klyuchevskaya Volcano – photo credit:

The earth is constantly changing with volcanoes erupting and exploding causing disruptive changes to the earth, massive forest fires create barren land subject to erosion, earthquakes make major changes to the earth’s surface, as well as tsunamis, tornados, hurricanes, etc. This is not exemplary of a stable planet. - Discover Christian Gifts from the Holy Land

To assume that radioactive decay has not changed over the last 4.5 billions (their estimate) does not seem reasonable. Think about the changes that have occurred just during our lifetimes. It just doesn’t seem reasonable or logical that radioactive decay would undergo no changes during such a long period of time.

breast cancer cells – photo credit:
The 2002 Oregon Biscuit Fire
photo credit: NASA/GSFC/METI/
ERSDAC/JAROS, and U.S./Japan
ASTER Science Team

Also, think about the changes that have supposedly occurred with regards to living organisms in the 4.54 billion years we are told the earth has existed. Evolution tells us that somehow a single cell organism formed (magically) and somehow miraculously transformed into a human being over that time period.

Evolutionary map of the world

Talk about things changing. Therefore, it doesn’t seem to be a reasonable assumption to assume that radioactive decay occurs at a constant rate without changing over those billions of years. We’ve been told to believe the miraculous appearance of a single celled organism turned into a human being, but radioactive decay has remained pristine with no changes through evolution or natural changes over time. All matter that has been studied has been exposed to the elements which over supposed billions of years would make changes to the matter.

For some reason many scientifically trained people use radiometric dating to date items. I cannot understand why any person of science would think that this dating method is a valid method of estimating the age of anything.

photo credit: NASA/JPL/USGS

First of all you may be thinking, why would someone like me with no scientific training venture into offering my opinion on such a highly scientific methodology. In defense of my reason for thinking I have the right to comment on this complex scientific topic, I will provide my logic and reasoning.

It’s true that I don’t have training or experience in this complex scientific methods of theoretically dating  items. However, any methodology that uses complex scientific processes, if it is to be accepted as fact, must be logical and capable of being proven using the scientific method. Even if lay people don’t understand the details of the process, they certainly can understand the reasoning and logic behind the complex scientific process. For example, a lay person may not understand the details about why someone’s heart is not functioning properly and the details that are involved in how a heart transplant is accomplished. However, a lay person can certainly understand that a person’s heart is not working correctly and that the patient will need a new heart or the patient will die. Simply because a lay person cannot diagnose a defective heart or be able to put a new heart into that prospective transplant recipient, that lay person certainly can understand what is wrong and what needs to be done to correct the condition. That lay person would certainly know that putting a defective heart in the above referenced patient would be disastrous. That lay person would also be able to know that the new heart would have to be compatible with the transplant recipient. One would not have to be an expert, a doctor, or scientifically trained in any area of medicine to know these things or to be able to use logic and reason to come to these conclusions.

Having established that lay people can come to reasoned conclusions about complex scientific theories and analyses, it’s time to turn our attention to the theoretical science in question namely radiometric dating and electromagnetic radiation.

The MAP instrument consists
of a set of passively cooled
microwave radiometers with
1.4x 1.6-meter diameter
primary reflectors to provide
the desired angular resolution.
photo credit:

“radiometer” is an instrument that measures electromagnetic radiation. Isotopes are variants of a chemical element that have the same number of protons in the nucleus and also have the same atomic number as each other. However, each of the variant isotopes have a different number of neutrons in the nucleus. There are over 800 radioactive isotopes.

It is common for geologists to use radiometric dating to estimate the age of elements through the use of carbon-14 and nitrogen-14. They use the natural radioactive decay of these elements to arrive at the age of Fossils. Also, for the age of the earth it is common for scientists to use isotopes potassium-40 and argon-40.

I have no problem with the rationale or the science behind this methodology of determining how long it takes for a particular isotope to decay as long as one assumes the rate of decay has not changed over billions of years.  The problem I have is that the rate of decay over billions of years and therefore, the years it may take for the isotope to deteriorate is unknown and is not capable of being known and therefore, has nothing to do with how long the  earth has existed. Think logically, if an isotope decays at a half-life rate of 1.3 billion years, how does that in any way have anything to do with how long that element has existed. That radioactive isotope could have been created 6,000 to 14,000 years ago and still have a half-life of 1.3 billion years, if it was created with a half-life of 1.3 billion years. How would that fact prove or disprove how old the earth is? If God created certain isotopes with half-lives of 1.3 billion years or 10.5 million years has nothing to do with how old these isotopes are. For purposes known only to God, I believe He chose to give those isotopes those half-lives. In order for this type of age-dating to have any validity, you would have to first know the age of the earth. Radiometric dating can only tell you how long it will take for a particular substance to decay providing nothing changes over long, long periods of time. Something could easily intervene that might change its radioactive properties. Using radiometric dating to estimate the age of the earth assumes that the isotopes being studied were very large at their creation and have been decaying at an established rate of decay. I understand it is not quite that simple as isotopes change into other isotopes as they decay.  Taking all this into account, still does not provide anything other than an interesting theory as to the age of anything. Ultimately, knowing decay rates does not tell a researcher what may have happened during billions of years or how large the item being researched was when it was created.

21 April 1972 – Astronaut John W. Young, commander of the Apollo 16 lunar landing mission
photo credit:

I think anyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence can understand why radiometric dating is not a reliable indication of when the earth or universe came into existence. To review, in order to determine the age of the earth and it’s components or the universe using radiometric dating, you first must know when the item being studied was created or how large it was at the time of its creation and that there were no changes to the properties of the items being studied.  It is not possible to study existing decaying isotopes and based on that analysis be able to go backwards in time to arrive at when they came into existence. You can estimate any number you want, but you can’t, with any confidence, state it is a fact. Remember, one of the main assumptions of this dating method is that the rate of radioactive decay must remain constant over 4.5 billion years. Experts can theorize that they “believe” they are correct. However, just because those experts  are able to calculate  consistent mathematical results does not prove that the calculations or results have any relevance to reality or the unknown ages being sought. Having a PHD and wearing a white lab coat does not insulate people from being wrong in their reasoning, assumptions, and logic. Anybody who has been involved with accounting understands how you can have assets equal liabilities, but if the numbers aren’t representative of reality, the reports that are produced are meaningless. - Discover Christian Gifts from the Holy Land

Please consider buying something through the merchant links presented here on this site as this will help ensure I can continue shedding light on important topics. Thank you.
The blogs that I do are a result of compiling information gathered from sources considered reliable and of course the Bible which is totally reliable.


Dust on the Moon Revisited

photo credit:

Short, quick, logical reads
with meaningful content.

The topic I want to discuss in this blog is a scientific theory and I want to be clear that this is a “theory!” Because something is a theory does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that the theory has been proven or that it is a scientific fact. However, it also does not mean it has been disproven using the scientific method. For information on the scientific method, please see my earlier blog titled “What is science anyway.”

photo credit:

The theory is that if the universe is billions of years old, as the Darwin theory of evolution would indicate, there should be an incredible amount of dust on the moon if certain calculations done by a scientist in 1960 were correct. Enough in fact that when the astronauts landed on the moon they should have been enveloped in dust. However, there were others’ calculations performed in 1993 which disagreed with the 1960 findings. There were some disagreements about what was included as dust and what elements were included in the dust among other variables.

Now, the blogs that I write are certainly not fit for a scientific journal nor are they based on pure science. I am guided by my faith in Christ, but I like to study topics of interest and try to approach these topics in an objective manner even though that approach may not meet the strict standards of the scientific method. - Discover Christian Gifts from the Holy Land

When I think about dust it just doesn’t make any sense to me that it is possible to accurately measure the amount of dust “scientifically.” I think about all of the variables that affect the amount of dust that might fall in any given area that is being measured. There is no wind on the moon, but there is  solar activity that according to some authorities can affect the amount of dust that falls on the moon. Also, there is disagreement as to what size particles constitute dust.

footprint on the moon – photo credit:

As you can see there is disagreement regarding details concerning calculations about the rate of dust accumulation on the moon. Therefore, in cases such as this it’s my opinion that logic and reason are more reliable than dubious calculations. Therefore the way to settle this disagreement is to use logic and reason to arrive at an estimate that makes sense.

Since calculating the rate of dust accumulation on the moon is difficult, it seems better to use a quantifiable small measurement that can be known and work outward expanding the small known amount to the larger unknown  quantity. For example, generally particles of dust have been estimated at approximately .3 microns (also known as a micrometer, one millionth of a meter) to 10 microns in size.

Anyone who doesn’t do daily house cleaning knows that in one week’s time a layer of dust accumulates. It takes 25,400 microns to equal one inch. Therefore, using a rational approach without all the professional jargon and caveats I will choose the .3 microns to represent the thickness of a layer of dust that can accumulate in one week. Therefore, dividing one inch thickness of dust (25,400 microns equals one inch) by .3 microns (thickness of particles of dust accumulated in one week estimated at .3 microns) yields 84,667 weeks or 1,628 years to accumulate one inch of dust. If say there are 3 inches of dust on the moon using the earth’s estimated rate would yield and age of 4,885 years. Obviously this is not a scientific estimate, but it is a rational way to arrive at an estimate that is just as valid as some scientific guesstimate without all the fancy jargon.

photo credit: pixaby

Now, it is critical that I state emphatically this is not a scientific analysis. It is merely an amateur’s effort to use a simple easy to understand rationale for arriving at a ballpark estimate for dust accumulation and using this estimate to make a ballpark estimate of the age of the universe. Are there flaws … of course! Any attempt to try and estimate dust accumulation is suspect at best. I used the smallest amount for the dust accumulation in one week as this would produce the largest estimate and avoid criticism that I was trying to make the estimate of years low. Instead of using one of the lowest found estimates of .3 microns, had I used .03 microns this would have resulted in an estimate of 48,000+ years. Had I used .003 microns this would have resulted in an estimate of 488,000+ years. And had I used .00003 microns, the estimate would have been just shy of 49,000,000 years. As anyone can see, billions of years does not seem to be a reasonable estimate.

I am interested in your opinion on this topic. Please leave your comments below. Whether you agree or not I’d like to know what your reasoning is for your opinion. Thanks for stopping by. - Discover Christian Gifts from the Holy Land


Please consider buying something through the merchant links presented here on this site as this will help ensure I can continue shedding light on important topics. Thank you.
The blogs that I do are a result of compiling information gathered from sources considered reliable and of course the Bible which is totally reliable.


What does science have to do with Creation?

photo credit:

Short, quick, logical reads
with meaningful content.

When articles are written about creation inevitably people ask this question. They have questions about how God and science have anything to do with one another. Many people say that God is within the realm of religion and science is about facts and the reality of what is around us. Because of these seemingly incompatible aspects of life, there have been many who see the terms as having nothing to do with one another. As a result there always seems to be a constant disagreement between those who believe in creation and those who believe in accidental evolution. Therefore, it’s important to understand why science and God are related to one another.

Set of passively cooled microwave radiometers.
photo credit:

Since God created the universe, it only makes sense that God also created the things that science studies and investigates. God created what we see around us which means He created rocks (geology), atmosphere (meteorology), elements (chemistry), and the stars (astronomy) to name some of the areas of science. This is critical because it shows how important science is … not to prove, but to support the creation theory of the beginning of the universe. All science can do is to either lend support to the theory of creation or to the controversial theory of evolution which has no explanation of where matter came from. God has always existed and was the omnipotent being that created matter and an amazing creation that was. The theory of evolution does not leave room for anything supernatural, therefore, just saying matter appeared from nowhere is not in keeping with their belief there is nothing supernatural about life. As can be seen, science is the study of what God has created. Science does not equate and cannot be equated to creation.

photo credit:

Science is merely the study of what exists. It attempts to ascertain facts in an objective manner through use of the scientific method. As we learned in a previous post, for something to be a scientific fact it must be proven through use of the scientific method. Simply gathering unrelated data together in an attempt to call something a fact will not suffice. In order for something to be called a fact it must be proven through repeatable experiments that show the same reproducible results. Results that are capable of being reproduced are necessary for something to be  called a fact.

For example, Sir Issac Newton was responsible for the  third law of motion that states that for every action (force) in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction. This is a scientific fact. Experiments can be done and every time a force is applied to anything it results in an equal and opposite reaction. Even in outer space this scientific fact is true and is reproducible. It is observable and verifiable.

As you can see, science is the study of what has been created. Science is not something that explains creation it is something that is used to study the creation. No amount of scientific facts that point toward the reality of a supernatural creation will ever “prove” that the creation theory is true. Just like evolution, creation must be proven to each person through faith. It is science that shows it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creation! When you think about it, to believe in evolution you must believe the “matter” that the universe consists of came from nothing. You also have to believe that the earth is just the right distance from the sun by accident. If it were any closer we would burn up and any further away we would freeze. You also have to believe that life was created by accident! Please, take one look at the complexity of your body with all its systems and tell me you believe that just happened by accident!

Please consider buying something through the merchant links presented here on this site as this will help ensure I can continue shedding light on important topics. Thank you.
The blogs that I do are a result of compiling information gathered from sources considered reliable and of course the Bible which is totally reliable.


What is Science anyway?

photo credit:

Short, quick, logical reads
with meaningful content.

One of the first things that has to be discussed is the word “science.” I don’t think there  is any room  for anyone  misunderstanding as to what the word “creation” means. However, the word science seems to cause much more difficulty for the average person when it comes to understanding.

photo credit:

Therefore, it makes sense to first go to the dictionary for the definition of this much abused word Science.
The Science Council provides the quality assurance system for those working in science throughout the European Union. They set the standards for professional registration for practicing scientists and science technicians across all scientific disciplines. Through their Licensed Bodies they admit to their registered scientists and science technicians who meet their competence and conduct requirements and commit to Continuing Professional Development. Those scientists who reach the required standards are recognized by the following designations CSci, RSci, CSciTeach, and RSciTech. (The Science Council is the competent authority of the European Union.)
The Science Council defines Science as:

”Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence:

Scientific methodology includes the following:

Objective observation.
Measurement and data

(possibly although not necessarily using mathematics as a tool)

and / or observation as benchmarks for testing hypotheses
reasoning to establish general rules or conclusions drawn from facts or examples
Critical Analysis
Verification and Testing:

critical exposure to scrutiny, peer review and assessment”

The definition of the noun science from the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary: “knowledge about the structure and behaviour of the natural and physical world, based on facts that, for example, you can prove by experiments.”

photo credit:

Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines Science as:

“knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world.”

”The word ‘science’ has its root in the Latin word ‘scientia.’ This is “knowledge based on

In keeping with this definition, science must have measurable results using testing and analysis.”

Science is based on facts, not our opinions and preferences. The whole concept of science has been developed to challenge unproven ideas through research.

According to the website, “the steps of the scientific method go something like this:

Make an observation or observations
Ask questions about the observations and gather information.
Form a hypothesis
a tentative description of what’s been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.
Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.
Analyze the data and draw conclusions;
accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.
Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory.

“Replication of methods and results is my favorite step in the scientific method, Moshe Pritsker, a former post-doctoral researcher at Harvard Medical School and CEO of JoVE, told Live Science. The reproducibility of published experiments is the foundation of science. No reproducibility – no science.

photo credit:

Based on the above definitions of science, it’s obvious for something to be claimed as “scientific” it must be proven using established principles, procedures, and is capable of being proven through use of the “Scientific Method.” Observing the steps in the scientific method it becomes very clear that there are established procedures that must be followed for a theory to move from theory to scientific fact. Simply because a theory can be made to “seem” reasonable or be the best “explanation” available does not qualify that theory to be called “scientific fact! Making some assumptions and then performing mathematical calculations based on those assumptions does not “prove” anything. It merely goes to show that the researchers or scientists are able to competently perform math calculations. The important point is that the scientific assumptions, calculations, and results must be observed and can be shown to actually result in what is hypothesized. Accurate mathematics do not equate to scientific proof.


Please consider buying something through the merchant links presented here on this site as this will help ensure I can continue shedding light on important topics. Thank you.
The blogs that I do are a result of compiling information gathered from sources considered reliable and of course the Bible which is totally reliable.


In The Beginning

photo credit:

Short, quick, logical reads
with meaningful content.

According to the Bible, God created the universe and everything in it. What’s also amazing is that He did it in six days resting on the seventh day. So you may be asking yourself what this has to do with science since I’m talking about the Bible and science deals with hard core scientific facts. In order to answer that question, we have to first deal with what are scientific facts and what are mere speculations about scientific facts. Also, it’s important to remember this website’s name:

As the name implies, there are many sciences that help to explain what exists. These sciences include astronomy, geology, mineralogy, chemistry, physiology and biology to name some. It needs to be understood that science cannot prove or disprove how the universe was created (or just “happened” as some believe). The reason for this of course is that there is no way to establish such a truth scientifically. In order to prove to everyone where the universe came from would require authoritative eyewitnesses to testify about its beginning.

Dead Sea Bodycare and Olive Oil Soap

Obviously, human witnesses are not available, but the true and living God was present since it was He who created it. Unfortunately, you have to believe in Him if you are going to accept His Word that He created the universe. As a result, many people will not accept God’s Word that He did it so numerous tiny factlets that science provides us must be used to help convince unbelievers. Even unbelievers must ultimately accept the fact that their belief as to how the universe was created is just that “their belief.” Even unbelievers in God must accept the fact that there had to be a “first cause.” However, if they want to accept the belief that matter has always existed I suppose that may overcome the first cause issue in the same way that believers in God believe that He has always existed. In fact believers in God believe that not only has He always existed, they believe He created “time” as well as the universe. Along the same line of reasoning, unbelievers must also believe that “time” has always existed. Again, just as the unbelievers must take by faith that “matter” has always existed they must take by faith that “time” has always existed. Unbelievers certainly must exhibit a great deal of faith to maintain their beliefs.

photo credit:

The Secular Humanist religion is a strong proponent of the theory of Evolution. Just to clarify, the Secular Humanist religion is the belief that there is no God and that man (a term which includes women) is god. It believes that man is in control and if anything can or will be done it is as a result of man. Somehow this religion permeates life on planet earth and by some it is not even considered a religion. Of course it clearly is a religion with religious viewpoints and faithful followers.

So, just what is the Theory of Evolution? It is the theory that matter and time always existed and somehow all this matter exploded and as a result of that explosion much of that matter is still zooming out into space and formed everything you see out there. Mankind (both male and female) came from a mixture of water and lightening that also already existed and somehow caused life to come into existence.

So we basically have two diametrically opposed theories that explain how what we see around us came into existence. Future blogs will focus on what science has to say about these theories and the creation in general. I will try not to get bogged down in the minutia but will try to keep future discussions as straight forward as possible and get to the point quickly.


Please consider buying something through the merchant links presented here on this site as this will help ensure I can continue shedding light on important topics. Thank you.
The blogs that I do are a result of compiling information gathered from sources considered reliable and of course the Bible which is totally reliable.