Spiritually challenged thinkers and tinkerers are hitting sometimes on parcels of truth without realizing that the Word of God in Romans chapter one has described the curse of sin that way. We read:

"First, there is no moral law: the universe is a nasty, heartless place where most things wouldn't mind killing you if you let them. No one is compelled to be nice; you or anyone could go on a murder spree, and all that is stopping you is your self-interest (it is very destructive to your personal bliss to knock down your social support system) and the self-interest of others, who would try to stop you. There is nothing `out there' that imposes morality on you, other than local, temporary conditions, a lot of social enculturation, and probably some hardwiring that you've inherited from ancestors who lived under similar conditions." [P.Z. Myers, "Morality Doesn't Equal God," Pharyngula, August 24, 2009.]

That must mean that there is nothing wrong with presenting reasons and evidence that evolution is wrong and teaching creationism instead. There can also be nothing wrong then to teach that humanism, atheism and certain religions are wrong.

October 10, 2009: A Catholic professor from the Netherlands, says Genesis 1:1 was translated wrong, we read there, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." She wants it to say `God separated' on the basis of pagan extra-bibilical studies. Of course she seems to overlook that heaven, the firmament, and the waters (clouds), were not separated or divided until verse 7. She also overlooked what Jesus said, "For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be." Mark 13:19. We learn from this that Christians cannot trust theologians. These teachers follow another master, the god of this world, and it is safe to ignore their Babylonian doctrines.

Abstract: Uniformitarian scientists define their stratigraphic column using fossils linked to type sections, with the expectation that the rock record should exhibit evolutionary trends in its strata. However, such is often not the case. A significant portion of the "Tertiary" section exposed along road cuts and in open-pit mines near Americus, Georgia is barren of both fossils and trace fossils. Hence, there is sparse evidence to support the assertion that the strata reflect millions of years of evolution. Instead, these sediments exhibit features suggesting high-energy deposition. The field data are more amenable to an interpretation within the young Earth Flood Framework.

Introduction

Modern stratigraphy has codified rules for mapping and age-dating strata in the `North American Stratigraphic Code' (1983) and the `International Stratigraphic Guide' (Salvador, 1994). Field geologists apply these rules to determine the proper sequence of strata and their corresponding age-dates. The paleontologic contents (e.g. trace and body fossils) of the various rock layers are crucial for defining the stratigraphic position and ages of the rocks, because uniformitarian scientists believe that history can be measured by evolution, documented by fossils contained in the sediments.

Most strata appear to have been deposited in subaqueous marine settings. Uniformitarians insist that life has been evolving for hundreds of millions of years. That much life over that much time should have left plentiful body and trace fossils throughout the rock record. However, this is not always true. In fact, the vertical rock record for any given location typically contains few fossils, and those are usually concentrated in specific zones or along bedding contacts, and not evenly distributed throughout the column.

Charles Darwin had apparently some Christian background. But at some point in his life he struggled with the character of a loving God. He wrote, "I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designed created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice." [50] Coming out of his teens he had already made up his mind to reject God and accept evolution. Hardly anyone has been able at that age to figure out the meaning of life. It does take time to learn the Word of God and understand it. The answers are contained in it, but one must dig for it. Once having convinced himself that the Bible was not true, he removed the only fixed point man has to discover himself and interpret correctly the world around him.

Rejecting God and how He revealed himself in His word, has always negative consequences for it removes recognition of sin and causes one thus to participate in it. That can only lead to a downward slide in one's personal life and ultimately the whole world. That path this world is sliding around on in our days. Those who deny God because of suffering and death in the world, reject the only source that explains its origin and existence.

The sad truth is that young people are denied studying for themselves the aspects of a well rounded world view. Humanists seem to insist that education is supposed to be neutral not admitting that there is no such thing as neutrality on issues of origins. We are either on the right side of it or on the wrong side. Eliminating the Bible from education meant that humanists could now present their `Bible' in its place. The legacy of Darwin is that he was instrumental in replacing God with partial human wisdom. They have to revise and change around their theories for ever. The impact on young minds is that there are no absolutes, no ground rules, just the struggle of the fittest. Multiply this thinking by the number of those espousing it, and you know why there is so much violence in the human race.

But sin is temporary, there will be an end to it - when Christ comes in might and power to claim His creation back from the wicked one who started the cycle of decay and death.

The consequences of the supposed "death of God" in modern life and thought have been excruciating and shattering all over the world indeed. People started to think that science is far and away the principle agent of social change, and will determine the future of man. Today we should know better. Just take the current financial crisis and the tones of bogus money being printed as well as the bogus causes it is attributed to. The truth lies more in the greed and self servicing policies of highly placed officials themselves. They have converted their believe in "no God exists" into "therefore everything goes as long as I don't get caught." So little figures on the `dishonest ladder' get caught and fined and put into plush jails to satisfy the gullible public. Since what news is presented to the public is decided before it is presented, the people in the land hear only their view points. Truth has fallen in the streets of the cities. Prescreened news only makes the news. People turned away from newspapers which printed only trash. People will more and more turn away from televised tales as well and forfeit the tube - if they are smart.

But is science the answer to everything? Of course not. Most of popular science is run by those who have an agenda of publishing only what furthers their cause of `no God.' Those who are still calling themselves theologians are from Mars. The God of modern theology has been reduced to a remote shut-away deity who is denied any direct activity in human affairs. As a consequence of a general culture of unbelief God does not even enter into the consideration and concern of man's day-to-day existence. Science thinks it has faith in God made irrelevant. But today we are beginning to reap the consequences which are often attributed to wrong causes.

The truth is, wherever man goes, corruption follows closely. Even among astronauts we had obvious shenanigans of wicked people occurring. Man is not getting progressively better, he is getting worse - physically and spiritually. Some believe that the ethic of knowledge which they like to think created the modern world - and what a chasm of despair it made - is the only ethic compatible with it, the only capable, once understood and accepted, of guiding its evolution. Of course the productions of this `knowledge' is mostly unethical to the highest degree as shown by its products in war, machinery, pharamaceutical poisons of all descriptions, abhorrent entertainment, etc. Only those with a worldly wise conscience can see these as harmless.

[50] The fiction of Charles Darwin, `Origin of Species'.