Now please take a moment to surf this link, CLICK! For possible items you may like to purchase. Your purchase of any of these items and donations will help Heaven Sense bring the Good News to the fast growing number of internet users.

please note! we at Heaven Sense would truly appreciate any money donation you can spare.  note that any such donation is NOT appropriate for any tax deduction as Heaven Sense is not only a church but a for profit  proprietorship which may sound strange to you at first but the owner/ceD/pastor, Kirk Gregory Czuhai HERE states as he always had what better way is there to run a business OR church anyway?  A proprietorship too! amazed? no one hiding behind any corporation papers ready at a moments notice to cover the whatevers of whatever runs the corporation.  

we at HEAVEN SENSE have as our #1 priority having great returns on the GREAT COMMISSION !

we want to be able to say to Jesus Christ when He asks us, "Do you have any fish?":   "YES DEAR LORD JESUS!!!!!!!"  

will not YOU help us in this endeavor, i.e. be better fishers of men as Jesus asks us?  Saving even only one more soul from the eternal damnation of Hell is really worth it.  Do not you agree?

to my brothers and sisters and mothers,

God bless you!

until later,

love and peace,

and,

peace and love,

kirk

http://kirk.here.ws 

kirk gregory czuhai

http://KirkGregoryCzuhai.ws

http://KirkGregoryCzuhai.here.ws

pastor/owner/CED/CEO/technical support

HEAVEN SENSE

the church/propriertorship of,

Father God, His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ,

and the Holy Spirit !!!!!!!

http://tinyurl.com/HeavenSense

http://tinyurl.com/supportHeavenSenseChurch

    If you have received God's gift of salvation (eternal life in Heaven), the Bible says that you will go there even though none of us deserve it (Romans 6:23b, 10:9, 10:13, John 3:16, 3:36, 10:27-29,& I John 5:13). If you have just accepted God's gift of salvation, please contact us at churches@altelco.net so we can rejoice with you and try to be of assistance to you in your new walk with God.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. II Corinthians 10:3-5 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to THE PULLING DOWN OF STRONG HOLDS;) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ. Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle NOT against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. 2 Timothy 2:4 No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please Him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.

http://tinyurl.com/JesusIsLord

http://tinyurl.com/HeavenSense

some information from chiefly

the site:

http://jesus-is-lord.com

is now given,  and with possible few exceptions, Heaven Sense Church agrees with what is stated forthwith.

===> The Theory of Evolution <===

(see also:  http://ProofOfGod.here.ws )

In accepting the theory of evolution, we are asked to accept as
fact many other theories. Evolution is not one theory, but a complex
series of theories. It is based upon many preconceived `facts`. Any time
someone begins piling theory upon theory, the stack of theories becomes
like a chain. The failure of any one theory can easily nullify the
others.
In `believing` in evolution, we are asked to believe that all of
the different forms of life on earth began from a `primeval soup`. No
one knows where this `soup` was, or what happened to it. No one can say
what happened to suddenly bring forth life from the `soup`.
What evidence is there to prove or disprove the theory of
evolution? Is evolution a workable explanation for the origin of life
on the planet Earth? The purpose of this paper is to present the
evidence showing the many misleading `facts` often presented as `proof`
that evolution is an undeniable `fact`.
---------
This paper is divided into two parts. The first part is a
collection of statements from a file that I downloaded from a BBS.

The second part is a paraphrased dialogue from a study of
evolution made by a personal friend of mine. He is represented only by
his initials. I have permission to quote from his dialogue. It is
paraphrased because his lecture covered a time period of three hours.
Therefore I have removed portions of it in the cause of brevity. To
reproduce it all would probably create a file that is too large.
My friend desires no publicity or material gain for his efforts.
Neither do I. I offer this file as public domain. My incentive is that I
feel the public has been grossly misinformed as to the validity of the
theory of evolution.
Some topics were present in both papers, thus I have paraphrased
to avoid redundancy. As for credentials, I have none for the author of
part one, although he or she is obviously an educated person. As for my
friend`s credentials, he is a graduate from a major Texas college with a
degree in dentistry. I have known him for more than ten years, and he is
not trying to personally convert anyone to any specific point of view.
He feels that the evidence speaks for itself.
Words that have been capitalized are those that, I feel, demand
emphasis. I am responsible for any added emphasis.





-=FIRST, THE LEGALITIES=-

THE DISTRIBUTOR OF THIS INFORMATION WILL IN NO CASE
BE LIABLE FOR ITS INTERPRETATION, NOR WILL HE BE
LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES, WHETHER DIRECT OR INCIDENTAL,
RESULTING FROM THE CONSUMPTIONOR INTERPRETATION OF THIS
MATERIAL. THIS INFORMATION IS INTENDED FOR INFORMATIONAL
PURPOSES ONLY!

THIS FILE IS DECLARED TO BE FREEWARE. ANY PART OF IT MAY
BE DISTRIBUTED AS DESIRED, AS LONG AS IT IS NOT CHANGED
IN ANY MANNER.


"NOT ONE CHANGE OF SPECIES INTO ANOTHER IS ON RECORD. We cannot
prove that a single species has ever changed."
- Charles Darwin




-------------------------------------------------------
PART ONE
-------------------------------------------------------

The Origin of Life

What is life? Is it just having the right combinations of proteins
in just the right order? Is a man nothing more than a collection of
substances and chemicals that happened to somehow `become alive`?

Evolutionists claim that the process of life was started by some
unknown process, millions (or billions) of years ago. This is the
foundation of the evolutionary theory. Is there proof that this is really
what happened?

One of the greatest weaknesses of evolutionary theory is that there
are too many forms of life to have happened by chance, and the building
blocks of life are too complex to have just somehow `happened`.
Could a cell by chance come into being that "has the DNA
instructions to fill one thousand 600-page books?" (National Geographic).

Examples:

1. Research has shown that the requirements for life are so complex that
chance and even billions of years could not have produced them.

2. Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from inorganic
materials) has never been observed.

3. Mendel's laws of genetics explain virtually all of the physical
variations that are observed within life categories such as the dog
family. A logical consequence of these laws and their modern day
refinements is that there are limits to such variation.

4. The many similarities between different species do not necessarily
imply a genealogical relationship; they may imply a common Designer.

5. The human body (or the body of any other creature) cannot live
without most internal organs, such as the heart, the lungs, the liver,
et cetera. Remove any of these organs, and the specimen dies. This
implies that the entire body was created at one point in time.

6. Natural selection cannot produce new genes; it only selects among
preexisting characteristics.

7. Mutations are the only proposed mechanism by which new genetic
material becomes available for evolution.

8. Almost all observable mutations are harmful; many are fatal.

9. No known mutation has ever produced a form of life having both
greater complexity and greater viability than its ancestors.

10. Over seventy years of fruit-fly experiments, equivalent to 2700
human generations, give no basis for believing that any natural or
artificial process can cause an increase in either complexity or
viability. No clear genetic improvement has been observed despite the
many unnatural efforts to increase mutation rates. In addition, no `new`
life form has been produced by mutation. No fruit fly `evolved` into a
mosquito or a bee.

11. There is no evidence that mutations could ever produce any new
organs such as the eye, the ear, or the brain.

12. If the earth, early in its alleged `evolution`, had oxygen in its
atmosphere, the chemicals needed for life would have been removed by
oxidation. But if there had been no oxygen, then there would have been
no ozone, and without ozone all life would be quickly destroyed by the
sun's ultraviolet radiation.

13. Two aspects ignored by studies of the origin of life are:

a) The beauty of the different forms of life.

b) The symmetry of virtually all forms of life.

Evolutionary scientists ignore these aspects, primarily because these
two things suggest a Creator. Virtually all recorded mutations produce
malformed, `non-evolutionary` changes in the subject under study.

14. There have been many imaginative but unsuccessful attempts to
explain how just one single protein could form from any of the assumed
conditions of the early earth. The necessary chemical reactions all tend
to move in the direction opposite from that required. Furthermore, each
possible energy source, whether the earth's heat, electrical discharges,
or the sun's radiation, would destroy the protein products millions of
times faster than they could be formed.

15. If, despite the virtually impossible odds, proteins arose by chance
processes, there is absolutely no reason to believe that they could ever
form a self-reproducing, membrane-encased, living cell. There is no
evidence that there are any stable states between the assumed
naturalistic formation of proteins and the formation of the first living
cells. No scientist has ever advanced a testable procedure whereby this
fantastic jump in complexity could have occurred -- even if the universe
were completely filled with proteins, as you will see.

16. The cells of living creatures are enormously complex. Every part
must be present in order for the cell to survive. All the parts have
different `jobs`. It is not illogical to state that if you remove any
one part, the cell cannot survive. This obviously implies that the parts
(ie, the cell membrane, the nucleus, the ribosomes, etc.) had to have
come into being at the same time.

17. Computer-generated comparisons have been made of the sequences of
amino acids that comprise a protein which is common to 47 forms of
animal and plant life. The results of these studies seriously place
the theory of evolution into jeopardy.

18. The genetic information contained in each cell of the human body is
roughly equivalent to a library of 4000 volumes. For chance mutations
and natural selection to produce this amount of information, assuming
that matter and life `somehow` got started, is analogous to continuing
the following procedure until 4000 volumes have been produced:
(a) Start with a meaningful phrase.
(b) Retype the phrase but make some errors and insert
some additional letters.
(c) Examine the new phrase to see if it is meaningful.
(d) If it is, replace the original phrase with it.
(e) If it is not, return to step (b).

To accumulate 4000 volumes that are meaningful, this procedure would
have to produce the equivalent of far more than 10^3000
(10 to the 3000th power) animal offspring. To begin to understand how
large 10^3000 is, realize that the entire universe has `only` about
10^80 atoms in it.

19. Based on present day observations, DNA can only be replicated or
reproduced with the help of certain enzymes. But these enzymes can only
be produced at the direction of DNA. Since each requires the other, a
satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must simultaneously
explain the origin of the other.

20. Amino acids, when found in nonliving matter, come in two
forms that are chemically equivalent; about half can be described as
"right-handed" and half "left-handed" (a structural description -- one
is the mirror image of the other). However, the protein molecules found
in all forms of life, including plants, animals, bacteria, molds, and
even viruses, have only the left-handed variety. The mathematical
probability that chance processes could produce just one tiny protein
molecule with only left-handed amino acids is virtually zero.

21. The simplest form of life consists of 600 different protein
molecules. The mathematical probability that just one molecule could
form by the chance arrangement of the proper amino acids is far less
than 1 in 10^527 (10 to the 527th power). The magnitude of the number
10^527 can begin to be appreciated by realizing that the visible
universe is about 10^28 inches in diameter.

22. There are many instances where quite different forms of life are
completely dependent upon each other. Examples include: fig trees and
the fig gall wasp, the yucca plant and the pronuba moth, many parasites
and their hosts, pollen-bearing plants and the honey-bee family
consisting of the queen, workers, and drones. There are many, many
others. If one member of each interdependent group evolved first (such
as the plant before the animal), the other member could not have
survived. Since all members of the group obviously have survived, they
must have come into existence at essentially the same time.

23. Earthly life forms reproduce after their own kind. Different animals
do not inter-breed. This suggests that each of these life forms were
distinctly created. Cats and dogs do not interbreed to produce `cat-
dogs`. Therefore it is highly unlikely that different life forms were
formed by species interbreeding.

-----------





FOSSIL EVIDENCE

"The vast majority of artists` conceptions are based
more on imagination than on evidence. Artists must create
something between an ape and a man; the older the specimen
is said to be, the more apelike they make it."

-- Science Digest

1. Stories claiming that primitive, ape-like men have been found are
overstated. Piltdown man was an acknowledged hoax. The fragmentary
evidence that constituted Nebraska man was a pig's tooth. The
discoverer of Java man later acknowledged that it was a large gibbon and
that he had withheld evidence to that effect. The `evidence` concerning
Peking man has disappeared. Louis and Mary Leakey, the discoverers of
Zinjanthropus (previously referred to by some as Australopithecus),
later admitted that they were probably apes. Ramapithecus man consists
merely of a handful of teeth and jaw fragments; his teeth are very
similar to those of the gelada baboon living today. For about 100 years
the world was led to believe that Neanderthal man was stooped and ape-
like. Recent studies show that this individual was crippled with
arthritis and probably had rickets. Neanderthal man, Heidelberg man, and
Cro-Magnon man are similar to humans living today. Artists' depictions,
especially of the fleshy portions of the body, are quite imaginative and
are not supported by evidence. Furthermore, the dating techniques are
highly questionable.

2. Many of the world's fossils show, by the details of their
soft fleshy portions, that they were buried before they could decay.
This, together with the occurrence of polystrate fossils (fossils that
traverse two or more strata of sedimentary rock) in Carboniferous,
Mesozoic, and Cenozoic formations, is unmistakable evidence that this
sedimentary material was deposited rapidly -- not over hundreds of
millions of years.

3. Many fossils of modern looking humans have been found deep in rock
formations that are supposedly many millions of years older than
evolutionary theory would predict. These remains are ignored or even
suppressed by evolutionists.

4. The vertical sequencing of fossils is frequently not in the assumed
evolutionary order.

5. Nowhere on the earth can one find the so-called "geologic column."
Even at the Grand Canyon, only a small fraction of this imaginary column
is found.

6. If `evolution` had occurred, the fossil record should show continuous
and gradual changes from the bottom to the top layers and between all
forms of life. Just the opposite is found. Many complex species appear
suddenly in the lowest layers, and innumerable gaps and discontinuities
appear throughout.

7. The vast majority of the sediments, which encase practically all
fossils, were laid down though water.

8. The worldwide fossil record is evidence of the rapid death and burial
of animal and plant life by a flood; it is not evidence of slow change.

9. A `simple' protein consists of about 100 amino acids. How likely
would it be that such a protein could `chain together` by chance? Assume
that we have a `soup` full of amino acids. We want these amino acids to
`link up` at random to form a protein consisting of 100 amino acids.
How many different combinations are there? Suppose there are 20
different amino acids available. If we wanted a chain of two acids there
would be 20 possibilities for the first and 20 for the second - a total
of 20 X 20 = 400 possibilities. For a chain of three acids, there would
be 20 X 20 X 20 = 8000 possibilities.
For a protein consisting of 100 amino acids (a `simple` protein),
there would be 20^100 possibilities. 20^100 is roughly equal to
10^130. Scientists have stated that there may be as many as 10^22 stars
in the observable universe. Let`s be generous and assume there are
1000 times that many. Let`s generously assume that each star has
10 `Earths`; that is, 10 planets that have the conditions necessary
for the support of life.
We will change the water into amino acids (10^46 molecules).
Thus, 10^26 * 10^46 = 10^72 amino acids on all the `earths`.
A year has less than 10^8 seconds for a total of 10^78 chains per
year. Let`s assume that the universe is 100 billion years old. We
would have 10^78 * 10^11 chains formed in all the oceans of amino
acids on all of our `earths` around all our stars, for all the years
that the universe has existed. But we have seen that there are
about 10^130 possibilities. Therefore, the probability of forming
by chance the given protein consisting of 100 amino acids in 10^89
tries is less that 10^89/10^130, which equals 1/10^41, OR,
0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000041. This is, needless
to say, an infinitely small number.

Thus, even if there were 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
`Earths`, instead of just the one Earth, the chances of life emerging on
EVEN ONE of them are bleak, to say the least.
And by the way, we looked at a `simple` protein. The average-
sized protein has 500 amino acids!

10. Detailed studies of various animals have revealed certain physical
equipment and capabilities that cannot be duplicated by the world's best
designers using the most sophisticated technologies. A few examples
include: the miniature and reliable sonar systems of the dolphins,
porpoises, and whales; the frequency modulated radar and discrimination
system of the bat; the efficiency and aerodynamic capabilities of the
hummingbird; the control systems, internal ballistics, and combustion
chambers of the bombardier beetle; and the precise and redundant
navigational systems of many birds and fish. Scientists have `proven`
that it is aerodynamically impossible for a bee to fly. Yet it flies.
The many components of these complex systems could not have evolved in
stages without placing a selective disadvantage on the animal.

11. If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a result of
`evolution`, an absolutely unbelievable series of chance events would
have had to occur. First, the complex and completely different
reproductive systems of the male must have completely and independently
evolved at about the same time and place as those of the female. A
slight incompleteness in just one of the two would make both systems
useless, and natural selection would oppose their survival. Second, the
physical and emotional systems of the male and female would also need to
be compatible. Third, the complex products of the male reproductive
system (pollen or sperm) would have to have an affinity for and a
mechanical and chemical compatibility with the eggs from the female
reproductive system. Fourth, the intricate and numerous processes
occurring at the molecular level inside the fertilized egg would have to
work with fantastic precision the very first time it happened --
processes which scientists can only describe in an aggregate sense. And
finally, the environment of the fertilized egg, from conception until it
also reproduces with another sexually capable "brother or sister," would
have to be controlled to an unbelievable degree.
And if these processes did not occur at precisely the right time,
then one must restart this incredible chain of events near zero. The
odds then become so astronomical that they insult the intelligence of
anyone with common sense. The `facts` of evolution are already difficult
enough to believe, without stretching them any further.
Either this series of incredible events occurred by random
processes, or else an Intelligent Designer created sexual reproduction.

------------

WERE THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, THE EARTH, AND LIFE
RECENTLY CREATED?

Naturalistic explanations for the evolution of the solar system and
universe are unscientific and hopelessly inadequate.

According to ALL theories on the evolution of the solar system:

a. The planets should all rotate on their axes in the
same direction; Venus and Uranus rotate `backwards`.

b. All 42 moons of the various planets should revolve in
the same direction; at least 11 revolve `backwards`.

c. The orbits of these 42 moons should all lie in the equatorial
plane of the planet they orbit; many, including the earth's moon,
are highly inclined.

d. The material of the earth (and Mars, Venus, and
Mercury) should almost all be hydrogen and helium --
similar to that of the sun and the rest of the visible universe;
actually much less than 1% of the earth's mass
is hydrogen or helium.

e. The sun should have 700 times more angular
momentum than the planets; the planets have 50 times
more angular momentum than the sun.

1. Detailed analyses indicate that stars could not have formed from
interstellar gas clouds. To do so, either by first forming dust
particles or by a direct gravitational collapse of the gas, would
require vastly more time than the alleged age of the universe. The ONLY
alternative is that stars must have been created.

2. The sun's tidal forces are so strong that dust clouds or gas clouds
lying within the orbit of Jupiter could never condense to form planets.
3. Saturn's rings could not have formed from the disintegration of a
former satellite or from the capture of external material; its particles
are too small and too evenly distributed throughout an orbit that is too
circular.

4. The moon was not torn from the earth, nor did it congeal from the
same material as the earth since the relative abundance of its elements
are too dissimilar from those of the earth. If the moon formed from
particles orbiting the earth, other particles should be easily visible
inside the moon's orbit; none are. The moon's circular, highly inclined
orbit is strong evidence that it was never captured by the earth. If the
moon was not pulled from the earth, was not built up from smaller
particles near its present orbit, and was not captured from outside its
present orbit, only one possibility remains. The moon must have been
created in its present orbit.

5. No scientific theory exists to explain the origin of matter, space,
or time. Since each is intimately related and defined in terms of the
other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must also
explain the origin of the others. Naturalistic explanations have
completely failed.

6. One Postulation of The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the
energy of our universe is constant, or `conserved`. Countless
experiments have shown that regardless of the energy conversion process,
the total amount of energy (or its mass equivalent) remains constant. A
corollary of the First Law is that no energy can be created. Since the
universe obviously has energy, that energy must have been created in the
past when The First Law was not operating. Since the energy of the
universe could not have created itself, Something external must have
created it.

7. Stellar evolution is assumed in estimation the age of stars. These
age estimates are then used to establish a framework for `stellar
evolution`. This is CIRCULAR reasoning.

8. There is NO evidence that galaxies `evolved`.

--------------

IS THE EARTH REALLY AS OLD AS EVOLUTIONISTS SAY IT IS?

1. Any estimated date prior to the beginning of written records must
necessarily assume that the dating clock has operated at a known rate,
that the initial setting of the clock is known, and that the clock has
not been disturbed. These assumptions are not verifiable, and are not
necessarily reliable.

2. A major assumption that underlies all radioactive dating techniques
is that the rates of decay, which have been essentially constant over
the past 70 years, have also been constant over the past 200,000,000
years. This bold, critical, and untestable assumption is made even
though no one knows what causes radioactive decay.

3. The public has been greatly misled concerning the reliability and
trustworthiness of radiometric dating techniques (the Potassium-Argon
method, the Rubidium-Strontium method, and the Uranium-Thorium method).
Many of the published dates can be checked by comparisons with the
assumed ages for the fossils that sometimes bracket radiometrically
dated rock. In over 300 (or almost half) of these PUBLISHED checks, the
radiometrically determined ages were at least one geologic age
in error -- indicating major errors in methodology. An unanswered
question is, "How many other dating checks were not published because
they too were in error?"

4. Pleochroic halos, tiny spheres of discoloration produced by the
radioactive decay of particles that are encased in various crystals,
show that the earth's crust was NEVER in a molten state. Furthermore,
these halos suggest that the rate of radioactive decay was NOT constant,
and in fact, varied by MANY orders of magnitude from that observed
today.

5. Geological formations are almost always dated by their fossil
content, especially by certain INDEX FOSSILS of extinct animals. The
age of the fossil is derived from the ASSUMED evolutionary sequence, but
the evolutionary sequence is based on the fossil record. This reasoning
is CIRCULAR! Furthermore, this procedure has produced many contradictory
results.

6. Human footprints are found alongside dinosaur footprints in the rock
formations of the Paluxy riverbed in Texas. This obviously shows that
man and dinosaurs lived at the same time and the same place. But
evolutionists claim that dinosaurs became extinct about 30 million years
before `man` supposedly began to `evolve`.

7. Many different people have found at different times and places man-
made artifacts encased in coal! Examples include an 8-carat gold chain,
a spoon, a thimble, an iron pot, a bell, and other objects of obvious
human manufacture. Many other "out-of-place artifacts" such as a
metallic vase, a screw, nails, a strange coin, and a doll have been
found buried deeply in solid rock. By evolutionary dating techniques,
these objects would be hundreds of millions of years old; but man
supposedly didn't begin to evolve until 2-4 million years ago. This
casts more doubt on the dating methods used.

8. In rock formations in Utah, Pennsylvania, Missouri, and Kentucky,
human footprints that are supposedly 150-600 million years old have been
found and examined by many different authorities. Obviously, there is a
major error in chronology.

9. The fact that there is no worldwide unconformity in the earth's
sedimentary strata implies that this entire geologic record must have
been deposited rapidly. (An "unconformity" is an erosional surface
between two adjacent rock formations representing a time break of
unknown duration. "Conformities" imply a continuous and rapid
deposition. Since one can always trace a continuous path from the bottom
to the top of the geologic record that avoids these unconformities, the
sediments along that path must have been deposited continuously.)

10. Radiocarbon dating, which has been accurately calibrated by counting
the rings of living trees that are up to 3,500 years old, is unable to
extend this accuracy and date organic remains that are more ancient. A
few people have claimed that ancient wood exists which will permit this
calibration to be extended even further back in time, but these people
have not let outside scientists examine their data. On the other hand,
measurements made at hundreds of sites worldwide indicate that
the concentration of radiocarbon in the atmosphere rose quite rapidly at
some time prior to 3,500 years ago. If this happened, a radiocarbon age
of 40,000 years could easily correspond to a true age of 5,000 years.

-----------

MANY DATING TECHNIQUES SHOW THE EARTH AND SOLAR
SYSTEM TO BE YOUNG

1. Direct measurements of the earth's magnetic field over the past 140
years show a steady and rapid decline in its strength. This decay
pattern is consistent with the theoretical view that there is an
electrical current inside the earth which produces the magnetic field.
If this view is correct, then 25,000 years ago the electrical current
would have been so vast that the earth's structure could not have
survived the heat produced. This would imply that the earth could not be
older than 25,000 years.

2. The atmosphere has less than 40,000 years worth of helium, based on
just the production of helium from the decay of uranium and thorium.
There is no known means by which large amounts of helium can escape from
the atmosphere. The atmosphere appears to be young.

3. The rate at which elements such as copper, gold, tin, lead, silicon,
mercury, uranium and nickel are entering the oceans is very rapid when
compared with the small quantities of these elements already in the
oceans. Therefore, the oceans must be very much younger than a million
years.

4. Evolutionists believe that the continents have existed for at least
1 billion years. However, the continents are being eroded at a rate
that would have leveled them in a relatively short 14 million years.

5. The occurrence of abnormally high gas and oil pressures within
relatively permeable rock implies that these fluids were formed or
encased less than 10,000 years ago. If these hydrocarbons had been
trapped over 10,000 years ago, there would have been leakage which would
have dropped the pressure to a level far below what it is today.

7. There have been no authenticated reports of the discovery of
meteorites in sedimentary material. If the sediments, which have an
average depth of 1 1/2 miles, were laid down over hundreds of millions
of years, many of these steadily falling meteorites should have been
discovered. Therefore, the sediments appear to have been deposited
rapidly; furthermore, since there have been no reports of meteorites
beneath the sediments, they appear to have been deposited recently.

8. Since 1836, over one hundred different observers at the Royal
Greenwich Observatory and U.S. Naval Observatory have made direct visual
measurements which show that the diameter of the sun is shrinking at a
rate of about .1% each century or about 5 feet per hour! Furthermore,
records of solar eclipses indicate that this rapid shrinkage has been
going on for at least the past 400 years. Several indirect techniques
also confirm this gravitational collapse, although these inferred
collapse rates are only about 1/7th as much. Using the most
conservative data, one must conclude that had the sun existed one
million years ago, it would have been so large that it would have heated
the earth so much that life could not have survived. Yet, evolutionists
say that a million years ago all the present forms of life were
essentially as they are now, having completed their `evolution` that
began 200 million years ago.

9. Short period comets "boil off" some of their mass each time they
pass the sun. Nothing should remain of these comets after about 10,000
years. There are no known sources for replenishing comets. If comets
came into existence at the same time as the solar system, the solar
system must be less than 10,000 years old.

10. Jupiter and Saturn are each radiating more than twice the energy
they receive from the sun. Calculations show that it is very unlikely
that this energy comes from radioactive decay or gravitational
contraction. The only other conceivable explanation is that these
planets have not existed long enough to cool off.

11. The sun's gravitational field acts as a giant vacuum cleaner which
sweeps up about 100,000 tons of micrometeorites per day. If the solar
system were just 10,000 years old, no micrometeoroids should remain
since there is no significant source of replenishment. A large disk
shaped cloud of these particles is orbiting the sun. Conclusion: the
solar system is less than 10,000 years old.

12. Stars frequently travel in closely spaced clusters, moving in the
same direction at nearly the same speed. This would not be the case if
they had been traveling for billions of years, because even the
slightest difference in their velocity would cause their dispersal after
such great periods of time.

13. If man and languages `evolved`, the earliest languages should be the
simplest. On the contrary, as one studies languages that are
increasingly ancient, such as Latin (200 B.C.), Greek (800 B.C.), and
Vedic Sanskrit (1500 B.C.), they become INCREASINGLY COMPLEX with
respect to syntax, cases, genders, moods, voices, tenses, and verb
forms. The evidence indicates that languages do not Evolve, they
DEvolve.


-------------------------------------------------------
PART TWO
-------------------------------------------------------
This lecture composed by Dr. L., D.D.S

I request that the reader `pretend` that the material below, being
derived from an audio tape, is entirely enclosed in quotes. I have
not included them because I am not a very good typist, and to have
added them would have required quite a bit more time to put this
information into print.

Also, please forgive me for any typing, spelling, or grammatical
errors that I may have made. Thank you.
-------------------------------------------------------


"I would like to approach the theory of evolution from an academic
standpoint. I have personally paid my dues....as most of you know, I
have a degree of dentistry, which requires a study of many courses in
the biological sciences, in college and dental school, to get that type
of degree.
One of the optional courses I took while going to ------- college
was a course entitled `evolution`. After a creationist-oriented child
and teen years, I went to college, and that`s when I started getting
REALLY smart.
Looking back now, I realize that I had fallen victim to a great deal
of scientific deception.

I want you to know that the theory of evolution looks pretty good if
you look at it from a distance. When you get right down to the `nuts and
bolts` of evolution, it is in deep trouble.
One of the leading scientists of this age has called evolution
`incredible`. The definition of `incredible` is not `amazing`.
`Incredible` literally means `without credibility`. He said that "the
problem is, the only alternative is creation." In effect he meant that
since he `knew` creation is `wrong`, he HAD to believe evolution.
This was not a man making fun of creationism. This is a scientist,
and true scientists all over the world realize that the theory of
evolution is in deep trouble. Yet they cling to it, because to do
otherwise would be to admit the existence of God.
In the 1800`s and in the past, we knew so little about the life
process that scientists could make a case for the theory of evolution.
However, as our knowledge of genetics and the human body as a whole
progressed, facts began emerging that cause the theory of evolution to
be in doubt. The same goes for our knowledge of the universe.

I believe it was Karl Marx that said that `religion is the opiate of
the masses`. In other words he meant that the masses use religion as an
opiate to mollify their existence.
I say that evolution is the opiate of the scientist. I believe that
every person has seen enough evidence to realize that sooner or later
they will come face-to-face with a holy God. In order to pacify their
conscience concerning that inevitable meeting, the scientists have come
up with a theory that, in effect, says `there is no God`. The theory of
evolution basically says that we made ourselves. Creationism says that
a Creator made us.

I went through a stage of theistic evolution, trying to combine
creationism with the theory of evolution, because I had been taught that
the theory of evolution is an absolute law. But I soon learned that the
theory of evolution is totally contrary to the Scriptures.

So I`ve come full circle. We will now explore the theory of
evolution to see `what makes it tick`, to see what the scientific basis
is for the theory of evolution. We will see how sound the foundation is
for the theory of evolution.

We need to differentiate between ORGANIC evolution and INORGANIC
evolution. ORGANIC evolution concerns LIVING matter; INORGANIC means
non-living matter. We will be concerned only with ORGANIC evolution.
There are those that say that the universe `evolved`. That subject would
require a separate study. For now we are concerned only with `organic
evolution.
First, a definition of `evolution`. Simply stated, evolution is the
theory that living matter arose from chemicals.
When I was in college, one of the first laws I was taught was the
`Law of Biogenesis`. This law states that life does NOT arise
spontaneously from non-living materials. Needless to say, the theory of
evolution is in direct conflict with this law. The theory of evolution
says that life emerged spontaneously from dead matter. The origin of the
theory of evolution was, of course, Charles Darwin. He was not the only
scientist who postulated the theory, however. Lamar was another
scientist who was a believer in the theory of evolution.

What is the `motor` that propels the theory of evolution? To
understand the `motor`, we need to discuss the concepts that are
necessary to the theory of evolution.
Those are natural selection, mutations, and lengthy (or epochal)
time periods. We want to look at these things individually, to see
"where the evolutionist is coming from", and to see how steady the
foundation of the theory of evolution is.

NATURAL SELECTION is the tendency of nature to perpetuate the
`survival of the fittest`. It says that as we `evolved` over the
millions of years, the strongest of each of the species has survived,
and have gradually changed into a new and different life-form. It is
also the `natural selection` tendency to eliminate the inferior species,
those unfit to live in a changing world. Natural selection is NOT a
method of `macro mutation`, and we need to differentiate between `macro
mutation` and `micro mutation`.
`MACRO MUTATION` is a major postulate of the theory of evolution.
It says that species are able to `evolve`, and to change into A NEW AND
DIFFERENT SPECIES. Natural Selection is NOT a method of `macro
mutation`.
`MICRO MUTATION` is the ability of members of a given species to
exist in different forms. For instance, a poodle and a saint bernard are
examples of `micro mutation`. They are of course both dogs, but have
different appearances. But you must remember that no matter what the
color, no matter what the size, they are STILL dogs. They are not
`evolving` into horses.
I believe in micro mutations, but I do not believe in macro
mutations. There is simply no evidence whatsoever that macro mutations
have ever produced a more viable life-form.

An example of a micro mutation is the `peppered moth` of the eastern
seaboard. Evolutionists love to say that this moth is `proof` of
evolution, because the color of this moth has changed from light colors
to dark colors over the past several hundred years. They say that since
the trees of that area have darkened in color due to air pollution, the
moth has `evolved` into a darker color to evade their natural predators
by `matching` the color of the tree bark. They neglect to mention that
the moth has changed color for the SAME REASON that the trees have, due
to air pollution and smog. Yet evolutionists point to this as the
`greatest proof` of the theory of evolution ever witnessed.
If this is `evidence` of evolution, I say that they have not
witnessed evolution at all, BECAUSE THEY ARE STILL MOTHS. They still
have the genetic material of a moth.

Thus there are limits to the extent of change within the many
different species. It is amazing how far these limits extend. The
genetic material has variations, but a dog will always be a dog. No dog
has `evolved` into a horse. If one ever did, the theory of evolution
would have at least a reprieve. But no solid evidence of such an
incident exists.

---------

I recently read that if you took one chromosome from a human and
stretched it out, it would be seven feet long. ONE chromosome. It would
be so thin you could not see it even with an electron microscope.
If you took ALL of the chromosomes in the average human body and
stretched them in a chain, they would extend back and forth to the moon
200,000 times. I want you to know that there is an enormous amount of
genetic information in the human body.
If you took the genetic information in your body and entered it into
your computer word processor, it would require enough paper to more than
fill the Grand Canyon.
It takes an enormous amount of information to produce a human from
the sperm and ovary. It takes a gigantic amount of genetic
`instructions` to produce a human.

The theory of evolution says that by mutations, `accidents` can
happen to that instruction bank, and then as that organism grows into
adulthood, that `accident` will produce a `better` life form.
Now, the human body is infinitely more complex than an automobile.
What if, during the construction of an automobile, someone at the
factory changes something? What if they connected a spark plug wire to
the gas tank? What if they miswired the electrical system? What if they
installed the pistons backwards? What if they installed the distributor
where it was not in sequence with the crankshaft? Would the result ever
be an improvement in any of these cases? Of course not.

The same results are produced when genetic material mutates.
Mutations are virtually always detrimental. The results are usually
fatal. Sometimes the subject is merely crippled. Sometimes there is
simply a malformed form of the same creature. But there is NO evidence
of a mutation ever producing a more viable life-form.
Thus we have now discussed both natural selection and mutations.
These, remember, are the cornerstones of the theory of evolution. But
mutations are the only means of producing `evolution` as we know it.

I would like to read an excerpt from a book written by Dr. Walter T.
Brown. Dr. Brown is a retired Colonel from the Air Force, a West Point
graduate, and has a Phd in engineering from the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology. It is my understanding that MIT does not give degrees to
persons who do not have the credentials necessary to obtain one. He has
been a Fellow of the National Science Foundation, and so on.

In his book, Dr. Brown says that "the process of mutation is the
only known source of raw materials of genetic viability, and hence,
evolution." He is quoting here from a man named Theodosus Dzenski [sp],
who is one of the most famous teachers of the theory of evolution.
Dzenski [sp] says, "The mutants which arise are, with rare
exceptions, deleterious to their carriers, at least in the environments
which the species normally arise."
In other words, he is saying that if these mutants are produced in a
laboratory setting, a scientist can sometimes manage to keep them alive.
In the environments where the species normally lives, these mutants
usually die.

A quote from the magazine `Origin of The Species` says, "If we say
that if only by chance the mutants are useful, we are still speaking too
leniently. In general, they are useless, detrimental, or lethal."
Why that quote was in that magazine is a mystery, because if you`re
trying to sell the theory of evolution, that statement is not conducive
to your cause.
--------------

Paul Moorehead has written a book, "Mathematical Challenges to the
Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution." In it, he says he decided "to
find out whether a single amino acid change in a hemoglobin mutation
is known that doesn`t produce a result harmful to the function of that
hemoglobin." He was studying the changes necessary in a hemoglobin to
improve it.
He says, "One is hard put to find such an instance." Yet
evolutionists have taught for years that Alpha Hemoglobin A changed
through mutations into Beta Hemoglobin A.
Mr. Moorehead learned that such a mutation would require A MINIMUM
of 10^120 mutations.
How large is 10^120? There are "only" 10^80 electrons in the entire
universe. Now this man is telling us that it would take 10^120 micro
mutations to change this one hemoglobin? How many of you believe that
evolution accomplished this feat?

To continue this story, scientists say that there is enough room in
the space around an atom so that the electrons of an atom have the same
amount of space as two bees flying in Saint Peter`s Cathedral. Thus
there is a large amount of space between the electrons that orbit around
an atom.
How many electrons do you think you could `pack` into the universe
if you disregarded the electrical repulsion of the electrons? We know
that there are 10^80 electrons, and there is the same amount of space
between electrons as two bees flying in Saint Peter`s Cathedral.
What exponent do we put on the 10 now? The answer is 10^120, the
same as the number of mutations required to change that single
hemoglobin.
The more you think about this comparison, the more you will begin to
realize that the theory of evolution is on shaky ground.

What are some of the mutations present in the human species? Well,
there is albinism, dwarfism, color blindness, and Down`s Syndrome. These
are genetic mutations, the `stuff` that evolutionists say produced
modern man.
How many of those would you like to have? How many of those
mutations have benefitted the people that they happened to?
The motor that drives the theory of evolution is mutations. Yet
there has never been a documented example of a beneficial mutation.

-------------

One of the things we have been pounded with is the amount of time
necessary to allow mutations to produce modern-day species. The
evolutionists are desperately looking for time, because if you can
produce enough time, you can hide the many weaknesses of the theory of
evolution. But eons of time are an absolute necessity, simply because of
the amount of mutations necessary, as we saw a few minutes ago.

There are a number of `clocks` that are used to judge the age of the
universe. We will see whether or not these `clocks` are reliable. We
will see whether or not the universe is really as old as the theory of
evolution postulates.

The first is radio-metric dating. Potassium argon or uranium lead is
used to determine how old something is. Carbon-14 is radioactive carbon.
Carbon normally has 12 electrons, but occasionally a carbon atom has 14
electrons. When it has 14, it is unstable.
If you took ten pounds of Carbon-14 and came back 1,000 years later,
if there was only five pounds of Carbon-14 left, and the rest was
Carbon-12, that is how you would at least theoretically determine the
age of the carbon. If that is over your head, just let it go; but that
is how that `clock` works.
When a creature is alive it of course breathes. Even plants breathe.
Thus Carbon-14 enters the creature or plant. When an animal dies, you
should be able to measure the amount of Carbon-14 remaining in the
specimen and thus to determine the age of that specimen. You should be
able to use a scale to determine how much Carbon-14 it should have had,
and then the specimen`s age should be measurable. This dating method,
incidentally, is only good for organic material, and it is only reliable
for a timespan of about 40,000 years. For a longer period of time,
potassium argon or lead uranium dating must be used. These latter
materials have half-lives (supposedly) in the millions of years.
This is a pretty good theory; we shall now see how shaky its
foundation is.

To make these clocks work, you have to assume that the rate of
radioactive decay is the same today as it has been for the last 40,000
years. However, scientists have recently discovered that the rate of
radioactive decay can be changed, not in tiny amounts, but in
significant amounts. Yet we have been deceived into believing that
radioactive decay is an absolutely steady process. That is not true.
Another necessity for this clock is that the amount of Carbon-14 in
the atmosphere would have to have been the same for the last 40,000
years. How many of you believe that the concentration of C-14 in the
atmosphere 20,000 years ago was the same as it is today? How many of you
believe that it was the same 50 years ago? It wasn`t. We`ve been
measuring it for about 50 years, and it has changed in `only` 50 years.
What does that tell you about the reliability of the Carbon-14 dating
system?
How many of you believe that the concentration of radioactive argon
or potassium is the same as it was two million years ago? That is a very
shaky presumption for the theory of evolution.
The point that I am trying to make is that the `facts` that we have
been bombarded with are not necessarily true. We assume, since a theory
comes from a `distinguished` scientist, it is a law. That is an absolute
falsehood. These `clocks` are NOT as reliable as we have been led to
believe.

A scientist who won the Nobel Peace Prize once said, at a meeting
with other Nobel Prize winners, concerning radio-metric dating, "if it
corroborates our theory and our work, we print it. If it comes close, we
put it in a footnote. If it is contradictory, we don`t mention it at
all."
How`s that for scientific honesty?
A quote from `Common Problems With Radio-Metric Dating`: "The fact
that erroneous results can be and often are derived from radio-metric
dating techniques has been experimentally verified. For instance living
snails have been dated at 2,300 years old by the carbon-dating method."
How many of you believe that a living snail could be 2,300 years
old? Wood from living trees has been dated at being 10,000 years old.
How many of you believe that a tree can live 10,000 years?
Hawaiian lava flows known to be about 200 years old have been dated
by potassium argon dating as being 3,000,000,000 years old.

These scientists would do well to consider the question put to Job
by God: "Where were YOU when I laid the foundation of the earth?"

I have a total of 69 points that indicate a young earth. We will not
have time to cover them all, but I will include as much information as
possible.

-----------

We will now talk about the `clock` of cosmic dust. 14,000,000 tons
of cosmic dust fall on the earth every year. The earth has a good
atmosphere so that this dust could have been dispersed for a long period
of time.
Cosmic dust has a high concentration of nickel in it. Therefore if
this dust has been falling for hundreds of millions of years, we should
be able to find an enormous amount of nickel. We have not. Either the
rate of this dust has changed greatly in the last 50 years, or our world
is not as old as we have been led to believe.
Scientists thought that the lunar lander had to be designed with
large feet. Since there is no atmosphere or rain to disperse this cosmic
dust, considering the supposed age of the moon, the lunar lander might
sink into the dust.
How much did it cost taxpayers to pay for the landing pods on the
lunar module? Remember that the lunar lander had `feet` about six feet
in diameter?
What happened? The dust wasn`t 200,000,000 years thick, was it? It
was about 1/2 an inch deep. What does that point to? A young moon.

How about Niagara Falls? Scientists have measured the erosion rate
of Niagara Falls for more than 100 years. If the North American
continent has existed for as long as evolutionists claim, Niagara Falls
would have eroded itself completely around the world, more than once.
What does that suggest? A young earth.

How about the Mississippi delta? Scientists have studied it for more
than 150 years, because of the concern about flooding of the delta area.
There is a great deal of information about the Mississippi delta. At its
current rate of sedimentation, guess how long it has taken to reach its
present configuration? About 4,000 years.
The delta produces about 300,000,000 cubic yards of sedimentation
into the Gulf of Mexico every year.
You can also look at from the other side. At the current rate of
sedimentation, if the Mississippi delta has existed as long as
evolutionists say it has, it would have filled up the Gulf of Mexico
more than once. What does that suggest? A young earth.

Scientists have discovered that the Earth`s rotational speed is
declining. If the earth is 2,000,000,000 years old, as evolutionists
say it is, and it had been slowing at the present rate, the earth would
have stopped rotating many years ago. Its rotational speed would be
zero.
Looking at this in another light, if you extrapolate the rotational
speed of the earth, and increase it as you go back in time 2,000,000,000
years, it would have been spinning so rapidly that all the continents
would have drifted to the equator, and the earth would have become a
`pancake`. What does this point to? A young earth.

The earth has a population growth of about 1/2 of 1% a year.
Actually this is a very conservative estimate. In actuality, the growth
rate is about twice that much.
How long would take one man and one woman to populate the entire
world at 1/2 its present rate of growth? About 4,000 years.
If you went back in time to the time when evolutionists say that
mankind as we know it began, guess what the population of the earth
would be at 1/2 the present growth rate. The population would be 10^2100
people! You remember that there are `only` 10^80 electrons in the
universe. Remember that if the universe were `packed` with electrons,
there would only be room for 1^120 electrons? That number is NOTHING
compared to 10^2100.
What does this evidence point to? A young earth.

Let`s talk about stars. Our sun produces the energy of about
1,000,000,000 hydrogen bombs per second. By doing that it is converting
the smallest form of atomic elements, hydrogen, and radiating that out
into space. The sun is therefore consuming itself.
There are stars that are 1,000,000 times brighter than our sun. That
means that they are using a phenomenal amount of matter to produce this
much energy, and they are radiating this energy out into space. If you
take the present size of those `superstars`, and extrapolate back
2,000,000,000 years, those stars would have had to be implausibly large
to be the size they are today. In fact, one of them would have had to
have been big enough to occupy almost the entire universe! What does
that suggest? A young universe.
There are many more indicators that suggest a young universe. They
range from the sublime to the absurd. Unfortunately, time does permit me
to cover them all.

-------------

Now let`s consider the demands of creation versus the demands of the
theory of evolution.

First, creation demands the presence of a creator. The theory of
evolution demands the absence of a creator.
Second, creation demands the creation of matter. The theory of
evolution has no explanation for the origin of matter.
Third, as for the time span of the existence of the universe,
creation demands the time span of recorded history. The theory of
evolution demands eons of time, billions of years.
Fourth, creation demands a `spirit world`. That is, the presence of
a `higher power`, one who created this universe and governs its
operation. This `higher power` is the giver of life. The theory of
evolution does not allow for a higher power or a giver of life. The
theory of evolution says life emerged spontaneously from non-living
matter.
Fifth, there is the fossil record. Creation demands a sudden
appearance of life forms in the fossil record. The theory of evolution
says that the fossil record should show the `evolution` of life forms.
The theory of evolution says the fossil record should show species
changing from one life form to another. There should be many, many
examples of this in the fossil record, if all the many life forms we see
today truly `evolved` from the `primeval soup`. We will look in detail
at this subject later.

Now, to consider all of these demands in detail, we will begin with
the first. Since the belief or non-belief in a Creator is a personal
matter, this is something that science cannot measure. It is either yes
or no, depending on what a given person believes.
The creationist has a choice here. Ironically, the evolutionist DOES
NOT HAVE A CHOICE. The creationist can choose to believe in a Creator or
to believe in evolution. The evolutionist MUST believe in evolution,
since he `knows` that there is no Creator.

Secondly, there is the question of the origin of matter. The
creationist believes that a Creator created matter. Where does the
evolutionist say matter came from? Why, it came from the `Big Bang`.
Hold it. I didn`t say, "how did matter come into its present form?". I
said, WHERE DID MATTER COME FROM? The evolutionist might say it
condensed into this big blob before the `Big Bang`. Well, you missed me
again. I asked, `Where did it come from?`. The point is, the
evolutionist has no answer for this question. If matter `condensed`
from energy, as some evolutionists say, where did that energy come from?
The creationist has no problem with this demand. The evolutionist
has MANY problems with this demand.
It is true that the evolutionist could ask, `Where did the Creator
come from?`. That is an area where man`s mind fails, because man cannot
comprehend the actions of the infinite, or the workings of a Being
infinitely greater than man. There are no words to comprehend or
describe a Being so far advanced from us mere mortal beings.
My answer is that their position on creation demands an answer, and
my position does not, because my position deals with an infinite Being.
The evolutionist`s position does not deal with the infinite.

Third, the subject of the age of the universe has been covered in
the previous material. We have seen that dating methods are far from
reliable, and we have seen that there is a great deal of evidence that
strongly suggests that the universe is not nearly as old as the theory
of evolution claims it is.

Fourth, there is the question of where life came from. The
creationist has no problem with this demand. Life was given from the
Creator to man. The creationist has an understanding of life; of what
life really is. The creationist knows that a man is much more than just
a collection of matter and chemicals.
If you ask an evolutionist what life is they will likely tell you
that it is the result of the production of chemicals. In essence, their
only concept of life is the arrangement of matter.
I believe that this question can be proven. Suppose that there is a
person in the hospital who has just died of a heart attack. I challenge
the evolutionist to take this person, to cool him down, and to go in and
repair or replace his heart. If life is nothing more than a collection
of chemicals and the specific arrangement of matter, let`s correct the
chemical imbalances in his body, and then the evolutionist can bring him
back to life.
The evolutionist wouldn`t have to wait for lightning to strike the
primordial soup, here`s a human already `evolved`. Let`s see if the
evolutionist can bring him back to life.
I don`t mean to be morbid or sarcastic, but I believe that this
example, though it may be offensive, readily illustrates the
shortcomings of the evolutionist`s concept of life. In reality, the
average evolutionist knows almost nothing of what life is really all
about, especially the spiritual world. The evolutionist is spiritually
DEAD.
The creationist`s understanding of life enables him to see that the
Creator has taken back the life that was given to this man, AND THERE IS
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING THAT THE EVOLUTIONIST CAN DO ABOUT IT.

-----------

Next we will consider the fossil record. If there is anything that
can tangibly `prove` the theory of evolution, the fossil record would be
the most likely. Fossils can of course be seen, handled, and examined.
It has been instilled into this generation that the age of anything
can be absolutely proven. As we have seen from our study of the various
dating methods, there is very little that is absolute in the `science`
of dating. The methods and results are at best questionable.
Recent advances in science has shown that there are questions
regarding things once thought absolute. I have read that scientists have
discovered that the speed of light is slowing down. There is evidence
that atomic clocks do not run at a constant rate. They, too, are slowing
down.

Concerning the fossil record, let me read what a leading scientist
has said:

"The fossil record reveals the absence of life forms in the lower
2/3rds of the earth`s crust. Then, suddenly, an abundance of advanced
life forms appear. The oldest rocks in which indisputable fossils are
found are those of the so-called `Cambrien Period.` The Cambrien [sp]
Period sedimentary deposits contain BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of fossils of
HIGHLY ADVANCED and HIGHLY DEVELOPED life forms. Every major
invertebrate form is found in the Cambrien rock layer. The complexity of
these advanced life forms is so great that evolutionists claim that it
would have taken 1,500,000,000 years to `evolve`."

If the theory of evolution is `true`, why do we find NO life forms
in the rock layers underneath the Cambrien rock layer? If evolution
produced these advanced life forms, where is the evidence that these
fossils `evolved` from more simple life forms? Where are the fossils
that these advanced life forms `evolved` from?
If you believe in creation, the fossil record fits in perfectly.
This is exactly what you would expect if this world, and the creatures
in it, all began at one point in time. You would expect a sudden
appearance of advanced creatures, virtually at the same time.
What viewpoint does the fossil record support, evolution or
creation? The answer should be obvious to anyone except a close-minded
evolutionist.

To conclude:

"Not a single indisputable, multicellular fossil has ever been found
in pre-Cambrien rock."

-----------

Charles Darwin, regarded by many as the `father` of the theory of
evolution, once said:

"NOT ONE CHANGE OF SPECIES INTO ANOTHER IS ON RECORD. We cannot
prove that a single species has ever changed."
- Charles Darwin

To illustrate the theory of evolution:

�����������������������������������Ŀ
� FROG + MAGIC WAND = PRINCE �
� (Fairy Tale) �
�����������������������������������Ĵ
� FROG + 200,000,000 YEARS = PRINCE �
� (Evolution) �
�������������������������������������

Another quote, this one from George Gaylord Simpson, a champion of
the theory of evolution, follows. After stating that nowhere in the
world is a trace of a fossil that would close the considerable gap
between ASSUMED (by evolutionists) fossils of the horse species and its
ASSUMED (by evolutionists) ancestral order, Mr. Simpson says:

"This is true of ALL of the 32 orders of mammals. The earliest and
most primitive known members of EVERY order of mammal ALREADY HAVE the
basic ordinal characters and in NO CASE is an approximately continuous
sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so
sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative
and much disputed."

Now that`s the candid admission of a man who was one of the
champions of the theory of evolution.

What scientists have done is to go around the world, gathering
assumed horse fossils, sometimes from the wrong strata. Then they have
come up with this `evolutionary tree` of the horse species. Most people
have seen this `ancestral tree` of the horse species. We have been led
to believe that this `tree` is absolute, indisputable fact. In
actuality, nothing could be further from the truth. It is a merely a
hypothetical exercise, and it is NOT based on sound research.

Because the fossil record is so void of transitional fossils,
evolutionists have come up with a new theory, called `Punctuated
Equilibrium`. This is a theory that my daughter at -------- college has
been bombarded with. She is a pre-med student, which of course involves
the study of life sciences.
First let me define `equilibrium` as we are using it here.
Evolutionists now claim that as a new species `evolves`, there are
periods of `equilibrium` of from one (1) to ten (10) million years
during which some species do not change at all. Evolutionists claim
that this is the reason that we find an abundance of advanced fossils in
one time period, such as in the Cambrien rock layer.
Next we are asked to believe that, after millions of years of
inactivity in their `evolution`, this supposed species suddenly becomes
"punctuated". This means that after all those years of inactivity, the
assumed species changes TO ANOTHER SPECIES in a few thousand years.
Since a few thousand years is so small an amount of time in the
`evolutionary process`, the evolutionists claim that this is the reason
that no transitional life forms are found.
This is a very popular theory nowadays. What is the evidence for
this theory? There is really NO evidence of gradualism. What they are
saying is that the evidence for punctuated equilibrium is, no evidence
for the old theory. Since the absence of transitional fossils disputes
the validity of the theory of evolution, they have now devised this new
theory, also based on no evidence, to `patch up` the lack of evidence
for the original theory of evolution.
I am amazed at how this theory has been accepted, and how it is
being taught in our colleges. It is a ridiculous theory, based on no
evidence.
But it illustrates one thing clearly. It clearly indicates the
BANKRUPTCY OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.
There is no evidence for the theory of evolution, so man has now
accepted ANOTHER theory that has no evidence in fact. Needless to say,
the evolutionist cannot explain how or why this hypothetical phenomena
`happened`.
Jay Gould, one of the authors of this theory, has recently expressed
hope for the appearance of the "Hopeful Monster" theory. This theory
states that a reptile laid an egg, and a bird hatched from it. This is
the only hope for the theory of evolution, because there are NO
transitional fossils in the fossil record.

Dr. Ethridge, the curator of the British Museum, has remarked:

"Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is SHEER
NONSENSE, not founded on observation, and wholly
unsupported by the facts. This museum is full of
proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In
all of this great museum there is not a particle
of evidence of the transmutation of any species."

I suggest that Dr. Ethridge is as qualified to make that judgment as
anyone else in the world. He has millions of fossils at his disposal.
That seems to me to be the honest statement of a scientist who has truly
investigated the theory of evolution, and has found it to be totally
lacking in credibility.
There are about 250,000 species of life that have been discovered in
fossil form. Yet out of this great collection of fossils, Dr. Ethridge
is stating that NOT ONE has been found that supports the theory of
evolution. I hope you will think about the gravity of his statement.






Next we will imagine a mental picture of a man sitting on an
imaginary chair. The chair is not really `there`, but the man is
sitting on it. The poem, illustrative of the theory of evolution, goes:

As I was sitting in my chair
I knew it had no bottom there

Nor arms or legs, but I just sat
Ignoring little things like that

That is a good description of the many shortcomings of the theory of
evolution and its attendant theory, the theory of `punctuated
equilibrium`.

If you will go up to Glenrose [sp] in north central Texas, you can
find dinosaur footprints and human footprints in the same rock layer.
How did they get there together? The evolutionists tell us that the last
dinosaur died 30,000,000 years before the first `true human` was born.
Did that mud stay moist for 30,000,000 years, so that the dinosaur
footprint and the human footprint would appear in the same rock layer?
Of course not. That would be too ridiculous a statement, even for an
evolutionist.
I`ve seen a movie that was made on those fossils at Glenrose [sp].
It shows the footprints of several dinosaurs and then it shows a human
footprint trail going right across it. Now these human footprints are
not very clear. In fact, the only very clear human footprint in the
collection is not there. Instead, there is a large square where someone
chiseled the human footprint out of the rock and sold it to a tourist.
But you can see the trail of the person walking there, and if you will
use a composite of those footprints you can produce a perfect human
footprint. There are some that show the toes very clearly, some that
show the heel very clearly, and so on. In fact, on one of the
footprints, you can see that this human slipped on the mud, and slid
about three feet. Where his foot stopped, you can see a perfect outline
of this human`s toes.
If you want to reassure yourself, look at your foot sometime. If you
study this, you will discover that there is no animal that qualifies as
having possibly those prints. That includes apes, bears, or anything
else. The human footprint is very unique.

Interestingly, in the movie I mentioned above, these human
footprints were shown to both evolutionists and creationists. Their
comments were very revealing.
As you might expect, the creationists came up with the conclusion
that was logical. The prints were what they appear to be. No mystery.
Just more proof of creationism.
The evolutionists, as might be expected, agreed that the dinosaur
tracks were obviously genuine, but they expressed doubts as to whether
those `really were` human footprints.
Do you see the difference in interpretation of data? The
evolutionists disagreed, not because the proof was inconclusive, but
because their preconceived beliefs prevented them from accepting the
data. Of what value is a scientist who will not accept data unless it
agrees with his preconceived views?

Most people have seen dinosaur footprints, or has at least seen
photographs of dinosaur footprints. Everyone, even laymen, know what a
dinosaur footprint looks like. Of course, everyone knows what a human
footprint looks like.
Thus, even an inexperienced layman could conclude that 2 + 2 = 4.
Yet these `scientists`, these evolutionists, could not make the same
conclusion. Why? Their prejudice would not allow them to. Their
`training` and `knowledge` precluded the obvious conclusion.

--------------

Next we will discuss `The Religion of Evolution`. First, a
definition from Webster`s New World dictionary:

religion - a. A belief in a supernatural power;
b. an expression of this belief in conduct or ritual;
c. a specific system of belief or worship involving a
code of ethics;
d. an object that is zealously pursued.

Obviously, if you are a creationist, one or more of these
definitions would apply to you. You would probably believe that this
supernatural power created all things. You should have a code of conduct
that you try to make an integral part of your life, as outlined in the
Bible, at least for all of us in attendance here. Also, you should also
believe that this supernatural power, having created this magnificent
universe, also has the power to override what we would call infallible
physical laws. These `overrides` are called `miracles` by most people.

Does evolution qualify as a religion? I would submit that it most
certainly does. Here`s why I think it does:

Does the evolutionist believe in a supernatural power?

Yes. They believe in a power that overrules the Second
Law of Thermodynamics. A corollary of this law says that
systems of matter do NOT `evolve` into more organized
states, as the evolutionists say it did after the `Big
Bang`. Instead, this law states that the OPPOSITE is true.
Matter and states of matter become more DISORGANIZED,
rather than more organized, if left to themselves.
The evolutionist`s view of primordial earth is that
matter, with no outside intervention, somehow produced
life.

Another term for this disorganization is `ENTROPY`, which
is a term for these increasingly disorganized states.

I hope that you understand what I am saying here. The
Second Law of Thermodynamics is a law that is considered
to be as fundamental as the law of gravity. It is one law
has been proven to be true for a very long time. Yet
evolutionists say that this law was suspended while man
and animal `evolved`. It HAD to have been suspended.

It is ironic that these two directly contradictory issues are being
taught concurrently on our campuses. In the biological sciences, students
are taught the theory of evolution.
Across the campus, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is being taught.
I think you can see how pervasive is the influence of the theory of
evolution.

A quote from a champion of evolution:

"Evolution is an ANTI-ENTROPIC process, running
COUNTER to the Second Law of Thermodynamics,
with its degradation of energy and its
tendency to uniformity."

- Sir Julian Huxley
-----

"Evolutionists are a group of persons who
believe quite openly in mathematical miracles.
They advocate the belief that, tucked away
in nature, outside of normal physics, there is
a law which performs miracles, provided the
miracles are in the aid of biology. This
curious situation sits oddly in a profession
that for long has been dedicated to finding
logical explanations for Biblical miracles."

- New Scientist Magazine
November, 1981

How`s that for contradiction? In other words, evolutionists believe
in miracles for biology, but they do not believe in Biblical miracles.

Dr. Collin Patterson, Senior Principal Scientific Officer in the
Paleontology Department of the British Museum of Natural History, says
that he `now realizes that evolution was a faith. He had been duped into
taking evolution as revealed truth in some way and that evolution not
only conveys no knowledge, but conveys anti-knowledge; apparent knowledge
which is harmful to systematics`.

If a evolutionist is honest (and few are), he or she will admit that
there is something necessary to make their theory `work`. The evidence is
conclusive that if one relies solely on the evidence and the laws
governing the operation of this universe, evolution is an impossible
theory.

The above, I believe, shows why evolution qualifies as a religion.
Do the pre-conceived beliefs of evolutionists affect their ability to
judge evidence? Yes, they do.
Don`t evolutionists observe a code of ethics or a code of behavior,
based on their belief in the theory of evolution, just as creationists
use the code of ethics and behavior found in the Bible? Yes,they do.
Do not evolutionists pursue their beliefs zealously? Yes, they do.
They are strict proponents of voicing their ludicrous beliefs at every
opportunity.

Their belief in the theory of evolution affects their conduct,
enabling them to look at data and reach a conclusion that is plainly
illogical. This could be compared with what the Bible calls `faith`.
Evolutionists have `faith` that their theory is correct, even when the
evidence plainly suggests otherwise.

Before concluding, I would like to stress that believers in
creationism no longer have to `apologize` for their beliefs. The theory
of evolution has so pervaded our society that many believers in
creationism have for years been trying to `combine` the `facts` of the
theory of evolution with the Biblical account of creation. That is not
necessary. Now that you have seen the evidence regarding the
unreliability of dating methods, along with the fossil record, you should
be able to see that there is no longer any need to feel uneasy when
expressing your belief in creationism.

-------

Next we will talk of creationism versus the theory of evolution in
regard to the various disciplines of science. We have already spoken of
the astronomical side of this question.

We will now consider the study of cells. These cells make up every
living thing. What evidence is there in this area, which will settle the
question of evolutionism versus creationism?
If the theory of evolution is correct, then the accidental synthesis
of the DNA molecule had to have taken place. As biological science learns
more and more about the complexity of the cellular structure, the
realization that this feat is impossible has set in.
The DNA molecule can only be replicated in the presence of certain
enzymes; numerous, complicated enzymes. Those enzymes themselves can only
be replicated in the presence of DNA molecules. So, which came first, the
chicken or the egg?
It is not enough to `simply` synthesize the DNA molecule; it would
also have been necessary to synthesize these attendant enzymes, virtually
at the same time. This is mathematically improbable, to say the least.
As we learn more and more about single cells, we have learned that
each cell is composed of thousands of functioning enzymes. In the early
days of science, cells were thought to be simple creations, with only a
few components. Thus their accidental `evolution` was perhaps a bit more
plausible. With the advent of the electron microscope, science has
learned that even singular cells are enormously complicated structures.
The advance of science almost daily erodes the already shaky foundation
of the theory of evolution.
A single cell contains over 1,000 functioning enzymes. Each enzyme
requires a gene to produce it. Each gene might be made up of 1,000 or
more nucliatides [sp]. Each nucliatide [sp] occurs with the arrangement
of four particular molecules that form it; thus, there could be 4^1000
possible combinations of these nucliatides [sp] to form only ONE of these
genes.
In other words, for the probability that the proper sequence for the
formation of ONE nucliatide occurred is 4^1000, which is the same as
10^600. Having spoken of exponential numbers before, it is still
difficult to assimilate 10^600. To refresh your memory, remember that
there are only 10^80 electrons in the universe.
Remember that the above odds are for the chance synthesis of ONE
GENE. Also remember that these alleged `evolutionary processes` must link
together to eventually form ONE living cell. The exponents of the numbers
allegedly attributed to these processes quite quickly reaches the
laughable. With each assumed `evolutionary process`, the chances begin to
approach zero very quickly.

Thus, the theory of evolution is in trouble at the very lowest
levels. That is, there is mathematical evidence that the theory of
evolution doesn`t even have the possibility of `getting off the ground`.
The theory of evolution cannot even demonstrate the chance synthesis of a
single living cell.
But remember, the evolutionist MUST find a way to explain these
things. To NOT do so would be `against his religion`. Since the
evolutionist `knows` that there is no Creator, his ONLY alternative is
the theory of evolution, no matter how ludicrous his theories and
`explanations` become.

The evolutionists have devised the postulation that, billions of
years ago, the earth had a sea of rich nutrients. In one of many
biological miracles, lightning struck this `primordial soup` and, by
chance, these nutrients reacted and produced the first living, self-
replicating cell. This cell was the first living thing in the universe,
according to the evolutionist.
The evolutionist conjectures and implies that this jump was just a
minor thing. That is far from the case, as we saw a few minutes ago when
we discussed the odds of even one cell being `born` by chance.

Concerning that `jump` from molecule to living cell, a Nobel Peace
Prize winner has deduced that an alien entity, in the dim past, `seeded`
the many forms of life on earth. Isn`t it incredible that a mind
brilliant enough to win the Nobel Prize could come up with such a stupid
idea?
This theory, more than anything else, shows the utter failure of the
theory of evolution to explain the origin of life on earth.
This great scientist is basically saying, after realizing that the
theory of evolution is foolishness, since life couldn`t have started on
earth, it must have started somewhere else. Apparently evolutionists are
getting more desperate than ever for an explanation of the origin of
life. At least this statement raises the odds. Maybe, just maybe,
somewhere out there in space, there is a planet where the biological
miracles of the evolutionist could have happened. At least this puts
things out in space where there is no one around to be able to prove
their facetious theories wrong.

Earth, with all of its water, with its atmosphere, with its perfect
distance from the sun, with the perfect cant of the axis so that we have
seasonal changes, with the perfect amount of light, with all of this
perfection, if it is impossible for it to have occurred here, how could
it have occurred somewhere else? There seems to be a certain method of
thinking, bound into the minds of certain scientists, to proclaim that it
HAS to have happened, and whatever kind of frenzied thought is necessary
to produce the right circumstances, we MUST devise and proclaim it. There
are apparently no limit to the imaginations of those devising these
theories. There also seems to be no limit as to the gullibility of the
public in accepting these silly theories.

------






There is also a theory out that, as an embryo develops, its many
appearances at different times reflect its `evolution`. This applies to
all embryos, whether it be a bird, as turtle, or a human. I was taught
this theory in college.
Do you know when this theory was proven wrong? Back in the 1920`s.
As someone once said, `There is nothing more fun than to watch an
intelligent man expound on an stupid idea`.
So what can you say? The above theory was called the `Biogenetic
Law`, and it has been proven wrong or proven totally implausible so many
times that it is ridiculous to even consider it.

"This theory is now completely discredited by most
embryologists."
-- Dr. Jeffrey Bryne

Over fifty years ago, Dr. Waldo Shumway [sp] of the University of
Illinois said:

"Experimental embryology demands that this hypothesis
be abandoned."

If that`s the case, why is this `law` still being taught? The answer
is that people are preaching the theory of evolution with religious
fervor, and they have to have something to teach. The theory of
evolution, being shaky at best, requires periodic `props` to at least
provide temporary stability. In a pinch, the evolutionist can always
dream up a new theory to bolster his cause.

------

Evolutionists have to rely on three things to make evolution
`work`. These are natural selection, huge periods of time, and mutations.
The theory of evolution is thus standing on three broken legs. None of
the three are viable models for producing life as we know it. These
theories were worthless thirty years ago, and they are just as worthless
today. The advancements of science, rather than proving the theory of
evolution right, is doing the opposite. The theory of evolution has
become the de facto religion of the humanist society of today.
The truth of mutations is that no one has ever produced a species
change through mutations, whether through micromutations or through
macromutations, even in a laboratory, even after thousands of mutations.
The appearance of a species can be changed through mutations; through
species interbreeding, you can come with a poodle or a dachshund. But
guess what? Both are still dogs.

There is the story of a missionary who proposed several possible
explanations of the origin of a tribe of natives. The natives of New
Guinea, after hearing the theory of evolution, openly laughed at the
idea. Why aren`t we laughing at it? It has been proven wrong countless
times. The reason that we aren`t laughing is that the evolutionist is a
member of a religion, with the theory of evolution as his god. He is a
devout person, and openly laughs at the idea of creationism. That is
called voluntary blindness.
------

In respect to the issue of genetics, if the theory of evolution is
correct, there is the issue of homologous structures. If you studied the
genetic structure of organisms, you would expect to find a chromosome
with a gene located on it in a place in a chicken that causes the
bird`s wing to appear during its development, and you would expect to go
into animals that `evolved` from these `lower forms` of life and find a
similar gene relative to a homologous structure. In other words, the
forearm of an animal should be similar to the wing of a bird. That is not
the case. Instead, the genes of all these life forms are distinct, each
with their own individual characteristics. There is an obvious
contradiction of the genetic data, and the concept of the inherited
homologous structures is false.

Sir Gavin de Beer [sp], a devout evolutionist, says:

"The attempt to find homologous genes except
in closely related species is HOPELESS.
Organs such as the eye preserve their
similarity in structure, but the genes
responsible for the organ must have become
altered during the evolutionary process."


Have you ever heard a more stupid statement? He is saying that over
the eons, as the eyes have `evolved` from one creature to the next, the
eyes have remained the same, but the genetic information producing the
eyes have changed. He is saying that mutations produced the same results,
but with different combinations of genes. That`s utterly ridiculous, but
it is typical of the desperate measures taken by the evolutionist to be
able to hold on to his god, the theory of evolution.

From the field of anatomy, we should see certain indications in the
anatomical structures of life forms. If the theory of evolution is true,
we should see organs in the human body (for instance) that were useful to
the human during his `evolution`, but that since have become useless.
When I was a in college, there were about 180 organs in the human
body listed by evolutionists as being in this category. They included
things such as the appendix, the thymus gland, and the big toe.
Over the years, we have learned that these supposedly `obsolete`
organs do indeed have a use.

The thymus gland is a gland that surrounds an infant`s heart at
childbirth. As the child ages, that gland quickly shrinks so much that it
is difficult to find any indication of it in an adult. The evolutionists
have therefore proclaimed this as proof of the theory of evolution, since
it `has no use`.
Medical science has since discovered that the thymus gland is an
integral part of the mechanism that `starts up` the immune system of a
child at birth. Would any of you like to do without your auto-immune
system? How long would you live without it? Ask an AIDS patient, if you
don`t know the answer to those questions.

Guess what else is part of the auto-immune system? The humble
appendix, believe it or not. It is responsible for the `T-Cell` formation
which is part of the immune system.
The truth is, there are NO organs that do not have a purpose. If
evolution really happened, we should see them.

We should also see organs being born; that is, organs that
seeing strange organs developing in our bodies, organs that have no use
at the present, but that will have a use sometime in the future. But we
do not, because there are none. This is still another instance of the
proclamation of assumed processes, processes that have no proof of ever
having happened.

Imagine the first amphibian, as he started to `evolve` a wing. At
first it would be just a stub, having `evolved` from a useful forearm. In
the midst of its evolution, it would become a useless stub, being halfway
between a forearm and a wing. It would have no function while `evolving`.
Thus it places a severe handicap on the creature. Obviously natural
selection would not allow such a thing to take place. Genetics certainly
disallows it. So there is no way, with reasonable thought, that it could
have happened.
The jawbones of reptiles had three bones in them. Evolutionists say,
by `evolution`, these bones `migrated` into the three bones inside the
human ear. The evolutionist says that since humans have only one
jawbone, these bones `must have` produced our earbones. Isn`t that
impressive? Wow. You know, from a distance, that could possibly be
conceivable. However, if you understand the genetics that would have to
be involved with such a migration, it becomes untenable. It becomes
ridiculous.
It seems obvious that the evolutionist looks at `facts` from a great
distance away. If you see a human from a distance of one mile, you might
think it is someone you know. As you approach this hypothetical person,
the differences become obvious; you realize that the distance made your
vision poor. That`s how the theory of evolution operates. At a distance,
it can sometimes be appetizing; up close, it is frequently laughable.
There is not a single scientific discipline available that will
prove the theory of evolution `true`. On the contrary, the opposite is
true. When studied, the theory of evolution crumbles as the laws of our
world come into play.

------

The simplest conceivable life form has about 600 protein molecules.
The chance that even a SINGLE molecule could form by chance arrangement
of the sequence of the amino acids in it would be between 10^450 and
10^600, depending on whose data you study.
How many INCHES LONG do you suppose it is from one end of the
universe to the other, at least with our present astronomical knowledge?
Can you guess? It is about 10^28! That seems a small number, but consider
that the distance is in INCHES. And to form ONE molecule the
probabilities are from 10^450 to 10^600? How outrageous does the data
have to get before it becomes laughable? Remember that the theory of
evolution says that this happened not once, but again and again and
again.
It seems apparent to me that we are dealing not only with a
ridiculous theory, but with a sick theory, an ignorant theory that has
been hammered into the public`s mind with a religious zeal. What else can
you call it?
Most of the believers of the theory of evolution probably really
believe that the theory of evolution is an established `fact`. But where
did they acquire their `knowledge`? From their educational
establishments. They learned a deception from men who have been deceived
themselves.

"Evolution is a theory fully accepted
not because it can be proven by
biological coherent evidence, but
because the only alternative, special
creation, is clearly incredible."

- D. S. Watson


To me, it`s the theory of evolution that`s incredible. The evidence
of creationism is clear. The parts all fit. The creationist has no
problem with the evidence. One explanation explains everything. The
theory of evolution explains nothing.


"I think we must admit that the only
acceptable explanation is creation.
I know that this is anathema to
physicists, as it is to me; but we
must not reject a theory that we do
not like if the experimental
evidence supports it."

- Professor H.J. Lipscomb
Physics Bulletin, 1980


Now this professor is an advocate of the theory of evolution. He is
also a rare individual; not many scientists would have the courage to
make this damning statement. He is also stating that the theory of
evolution is anathema to the laws of physics.

------

We will now conclude this lecture. As a last subject, we will
discuss not the theory of evolution, but rather WHAT EFFECT the theory of
evolution has on our thinking processes. I speak of us as individual
human beings, each of us with the power to make decisions and to
interpret the evidence before our eyes. What does belief in the theory of
evolution cause us to think, and what does the theory of evolution cause
us to do?
I will now quote from Doctor Henry Morris` book, "The Twilight of
Evolution". This book contains a statement from Thomas Huxley, one of the
greatest advocates of the theory of evolution ever:

"Furthermore, with the adoption of the evolutionary
approach in non-biological fields, from cosmology to
human affairs, we are beginning to realize that
biological evolution is only one aspect of evolution
in general. Evolution, in the extended sense can
be defined as a directional and an essentially
irreversible process occurring in time which in
course gives rise to an increase of variety and
an increasingly high level of organization in its
believers. Our present knowledge indeed forces us to
view that the whole of reality is evolution,
a single process of transformation."

I believe that you can feel the religious overtones in that
statement concerning the theory of evolution. You can also see that
someone who has preached it with the great zeal of this man has had his
entire comprehension of the universe altered. It is more than a `science`
to this man, it is his religion. It has permeated his entire personality,
under the guise of `intelligence`.

With that statement, we will close. Thank you for your time."

conclusion, throw away your tv's then at least no more

garbage like Sodomite shows, idolatry and coveting causing commercial nonsense like NOVA shows!

http://tinyurl.com/HeavenSense

===>

ISLAM

<===

• Satanism in popular computer games
• The "Historical Jesus" What is this "Common Era" (C.E./B.C.E.) Business?
• Sodomite (Homosexual) Marriage?
• What does God think about Sodomy/"Homosexuality"?

Cults

<===

keywords: cults, cult, Christian
If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: 

For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds. 

II JOHN 10-11 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Why talk about cults? 

We are continually warned in the Bible to have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness. The cults fall into the category of darkness. Cults are leading people astray into lies, deceit, confusion and ultimately hell. According to our theme verse, we are not even supposed to say, "God bless you" to cult members lest we be partakers of their evil deeds. We can tell cultists about the Lord, but if they don't want to hear and persist in their cult activities, we are to have no fellowship with them. Today's "Christianity" says, "Just love everybody and try to impress them with your life. After all, we all believe the same 'essentials'." The Lord says: 
But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. 

I Corinthians 5:11

In this and other verses, the Bible says to mark those that cause division--not embrace them. 

Purpose 

This page has multiple purposes: 
warn the saints, cult members and potential cult members of false doctrines 
equip saints to effectively witness to cult members and sympathizers 
equip saints to identify cult members from a few words of conversation

Satan has filled this world with "Christian" cults and wrong doctrines in order to see people cast in hell fire. He (1) deceives the simple and (2) appeals to the prideful who want a "customized" religion that fits in with their belief system. Cults also offer something, "new" which in this world is tantamount to better. But God said, "I change not". So when someone brings me a "new thing" I am wary and really seek the Lord about it. 

Witnessing to the Cultist 

I've met people from a number of cults and all of them had been brainwashed by their religious leaders. You must be in prayer the whole time you are talking to them, because the spirits that have control over them must be quieted in order for them to hear what you are saying. The cult member has been told the same lies so many times that he believes they are true. He's been told that his group is the only one that has the truth. He has been told that the world considers his group a cult. He has been told that disciples of Jesus had to undergo the same persecution he does. You are talking to a person that thinks they are right. 

The biggest weapon you've got is the word of God. It punches holes in every cult argument. The Bible is the only offensive weapon listed in the whole armour of God in Ephesians 6. NOTHING can replace an intimate knowledge of the authorized King James Bible. Believe it or not, I've met cultists who have been specifically told NOT to read the authorized King James version of the Bible. This is personal experience. Dear reader, I'm not straining at a gnat on the AKJV issue. 

One time I was making some good headway with a Jehovah's Witness cult member. The Holy Ghost was moving heavily and I could see that some light was getting through, but our time expired and she had to go back to work because her lunch hour was up. She said she'd like to get together again. I told her that if she told any of her members that they'd tell her not to talk to me again. "Oh, I'm just going to tell my husband." That was the last I saw of her. I just have to pray and trust that God will take whatever occurred that day and work it out to His glory--His word will not return unto Him void, but will accomplish the thing that He pleases. 

Cults have a tendency to change their names, but their evil deeds remain. They'll try to tell you that their "official publications" speak for them, not the writings of their founders and prominent leaders. If you're not sure if an organization is a cult, do these three things: 
Take a look at their founder. Good don't come out of evil. Jesus said an evil tree cannot bear good fruit and this is true for cults. 
Ask yourself, "Who do they say Jesus is?" 
Ask yourself, "How do they say we must be saved?"

The following is a starting list of cults and some of their distinguishing false beliefs (please keep in mind that whole books can be written on these cults--these are therefore cursory descriptions). As the Lord leads, we'll add others. Links are in all capitals. 

Children of God/The Family
Jehovah Witness/Russellism
Roman Catholic
Christian Science/The Church of Christ Scientist
Mormon/The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

Links: 

SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISM
WORLDWIDE CHURCH OF GOD
"BIBLE-BASED" CULTS (including groups like the "Garbage Eaters")
CHRISTADELPHIAN, I CHRISTADELPHIAN, II CHRISTADELPHIAN, III
BOSTON CHURCH OF CHRIST & THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Cult name: The Children of God (C.O.G.)/The Family 

Founder: Moses David Berg, organized 1968 

Overview: Don't be fooled by this one. They've adopted a more clean-cut appearance. They even performed in the white house in 1992. I was in a salon one day when a bunch of nice looking, college-aged kids came in and said, "We're the Family and we'd like to sing a song for you." They played the guitar, sang and passed out some coloring sheets and solicited funds. It took all of about 1.5 minutes and they were out the door. I didn't give them anything and thought that they might be C.O.G. I recently got confirmation when I viewed a documentary on cults. 

C.O.G. appealed to the hippie generation with its message of "free" love and singing all in the name of Jesus. They are called the original Jesus "freaks" 

Cult Tenets/Characteristics: 

1. Flirty fishing: Practice of religious prostitution. Founder Berg bases it on Jesus' statement, "I will make you fishers of men". He says that any means is acceptable to bring people into "the kingdom of God"--including having sex with them. 

2. Child sex. Publish child pornography in their cult publications. 

3. As with many cults, much missionary zeal in America and abroad. 

4. Their children don't always go to main stream schools. 

5. Charges dismissed in Argentina of child abuse and slavery. 

6. Mind control over members. 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Cult name: Jehovah's Witness/Russellism 

Founder: Charles Taze Russell, organized 1880 

Overview: He sold his Men's Furnishing Store and set out to condemn the translators of the Bible and ministers for what they taught. He taught that the church belongs to the ecclesiastical wing of Satan's organization. He condemns the teaching of the church of all ages--only the JW's supposedly know the truth. (But Christ said that He would build His church and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it) 

They are quite "friendly" and hold regular "Bible" studies and meetings which probably appeals to many. 

Cult Tenets/Characteristics: 

1. Jesus did not rise from the dead. Russell says His body either dissolved into gases or is still preserved somewhere. (Everything a Christian believes hangs on this one fact. Paul says, "If Christ be not risen, your faith is vain.") 

2. God is not triune, i.e., Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (I John 5:7 says that there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost and these three are ONE). 

3. No such thing as a hell of everlasting torment. Hell is just the grave. The wicked are simply annihilated. (See our article on hell for verses on hell) 

4. Man has no spirit. 

5. The Holy Ghost is not a person of the Godhead, just a "life force" of God. (yet He is called God in the Bible and is recorded speaking and commanding) 

6. Mind control over members. 

7. Man must work to be part of "God's system of things". I guess that refers to life in the hereafter but it certainly is not a Bible phrase. (the Bible says, "For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves. It is the gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast.") 

8. 144,000 will live in heaven with God. (they take the 144,000 in Revelation out of context) 

9. Fascination with 1) not taking blood transfusions, 2) knocking on doors (they say that's they way Jesus usually shared. No He didn't. The multitudes flocked to Him.), 3) calling God by His "personal name", Jehovah. 

10. All dead people will have a second chance for eternal life at the millennium. If you do not prove worthiness at this time, you'll be destroyed. (the Bible says that it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment. no second chances) 

11. The blood of Christ does not forgive sins, it gives us a "chance" to live again. They have NO assurance of salvation as JWs who supposedly know the truth. (The Bible says the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin. Common sense question--Why would God send His Son to die if there was another way to be saved?) 

12. Jesus is the archangel Michael--a created being. (John 1:1, 14 says that Jesus is the Word who was in the beginning with God and was God. The Bible also says, "God was manifest in the flesh.") 

13. Jesus is just an agent of God, nothing more. 

14. Said Jesus' second coming occurred invisibly in 1874. Russell's successor, Rutherford, says this was confirmed by the creation of the first labor organization in 1874. (But the Bible says every eye will see Him. Utter nonsense.) 

15. Russell said that in 1914 the millennium would occur and righteousness would be restored to the earth. As 1914 approached, he, and his successor, changed the date to 1915, 1916, 1924, 1928, and on and on to the present day! When you ask a JW about this, they'll give you the party line, "Well, the Watch Tower is reaching different levels of enlightenment." (If JWs believed the Bible, they'd know Russell was a false prophet. Deuteronomy 18:22 says, "When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken..." 

16. They have many publications with interesting titles like, "Where are the Dead", "To Hell and Back Again", "Millions now living shall never die." They have slick, attractive pictures and topics. But many people do not stop to consider if these things are true and in accordance with the Bible. They pass 'em out everywhere. 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Cult name: Roman Catholicism 

Founder: Emperor Constantine, organized in early 300's A.D. 

Overview: The largest, most respected cult in the world. But God don't respect it. It centers around the worship of a pagan goddess which has been renamed Mary and a cracker god named Jesus. 

Cult Tenets/Characteristics: See The Catholic "Church" is not Christian which is on this website. You may also go to our home page and peruse our section on Catholicism. 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Cult name: Christian Science/The Church of Christ Scientist 

Founder: Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy, organized 1879 

Overview: Let's start with a quote from founder Eddy that says it all. She wrote to Judge S.J. Hanna: "I have marveled at the press and pulpit's patience with me, when I have taken away their Lord." 

This cult is founded on Mrs. Eddy's book, "Science and Health (with Key to the Scriptures)" the last part of the title was added later. She claims to have received divine revelation in writing this book (but as you'll see below, they don't believe in a personal God--how could she then get divine revelation? She did--it was from the god of this world, Satan). 

The following quote from Eddy sums up the foundation for this cult, "In the year 1866 I discovered the Science of metaphysical healing, and named it Christian Science." Mrs. Eddy simply took eastern mysticism (e.g., Hinduism) and pantheism (all is God) and called it Christian Science. 

These tenets are so self-evidently ludicrous that I didn't put many scripture verses behind them. 

Cult Tenets/Characteristics: 

1. There is no such thing as sin. It is an illusion. 

2. There is no such thing as sickness. It is an illusion. 

3. Sick people must be convinced that they are not sick. Then they will get well. (funny, Eddy went to the doctor when she had a toothache and had the nerve to get anesthesia) 

4. There is no such thing as death. A person gets old and dies because they believe that is what is supposed to happen. 

5. Their god is not the personal God of the Bible. Everything is god and god is good. Therefore there is no sin, disease, or death because all is god and god is good. The whole universe is falsehood--an illusion. 

6. Claim that there is healing from Christian Science. Their method of healing is denying the disease itself, e.g., "I am not sick. I do not have cancer." This is not prayer. It is simply talking out loud to yourself. In fact, Christian Science says that prayer to a personal God is a hindrance. So...they stand babbling to themselves. 

7. CS claims many cases of reported healings. Dr. Stephen Paget, who made a thorough study of a number of these reported cures concludes, "The vast majority of their testimonials are not worth the paper on which they are printed." He found no cases that are a credit to Christian Science. But he did find that many a curable disease under their treatment runs from bad to worse till no remedy avails any more. 

8. CS claims to be a Christian church and sings evangelical hymns and reads the Bible--HOWEVER, the read the Bible in light of "Science and Health". Examples of blasphemy: Jesus did not die because there is no death. Man is not made of the dust of the earth as in Genesis 2 because matter doesn't exist--therefore Mrs. Eddy calls Genesis 2, "a lie". They take her word over the Bible. 

9. Jesus not God. He was the highest human concept of the perfect man, but not to be worshipped. 

10. Jesus never died. Death does not exist. He just thought He was dead. 

11. Blood of Jesus has no atoning value and since sin is an illusion we are not guilty. 

12. Salvation is deliverance from delusion and entrance into Christian Science. 

13. Jesus was never tempted by the devil. Eddy says, "He was tempted by the false beliefs in His own mind." (Big words for a creature made of dust whose days are like a vapor of smoke.) 

14. Women can become mothers by a supreme effort of their own minds. 

15. CS set themselves against a meeting by Alexander Dowie in New York and began their style of prayer--"This is not truth; this is error; this cannot be; this must not be; this shall not be;" (My question is this. If there is no sin, how can there be error?) 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Cult name: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Mormons 

Founder: Joseph Smith, Jr., organized April 6, 1830 

Overview: Smith claimed that he had seen and conversed with God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. (But the Bible says it would kill a man to see God). There are about 2.5 million Mormons today and because of their missionary zeal it is one of the fastest growing churches in the world. I've noticed several Mormon commercials of late and one of our church teens asked me about it. Her mother was going to send off for the free Book of Mormon. The young lady talked about how it seemed Christian, but she wanted to make sure. Praise Jesus that He guides the young people to ask questions. 

A few years ago, a couple of neatly dressed Mormon young men approached me at an ATM machine as I waited in line. The conversation went something like this: 
Mormons: "Do you know God?" 

"Yes, I do. I love Jesus." I looked at their Latter-Day Saints name tags. 

"That's good. We'd like to talk to you about God." 

"Do you believe in Jesus?" 

"Yes, we believe Jesus is the Son of God." 

"Aren't you Mormons?" They looked a little uncomfortable when I said that. 

"Uh, yes. We hold here the other part of the Bible." They showed me the Book of Mormon. 

"What does that book tell me that the Bible doesn't tell me?" 

"How to run a church." 

"The Bible tells me how to do that." 

"How to be baptized." 

"The Bible tells me how to do that." 

"Well, this book tells about the sons of Joseph on the North American Continent..." They went on for a while and I listened. When they paused, I cut in. 

"Don't you believe that God lives on a planet with spiritual wives making babies?" Complete silence. They looked at each other. I didn't let them off the hook, I stood there awaiting an answer. After about 30 seconds... 

"Well, uh," shrugging shoulders, "yeah but...We'd like to invite you to one of our meetings." 

"If I came to your meeting, would you let me show you the truth from the Bible?" 

"We already know the truth." By this time I'd gotten my money. 

"Well, the Bible tells me that if any man that claims to be a brother be an idolater or a fornicator with such an one no not eat. I'm afraid that we cannot have any fellowship." At that I walked away. Thank you Jesus and thank you Bro. Chick for that Mormon tract!


Cult Tenets/Characteristics: 

1. Bible inferior to the Book of Mormon because of great and universal apostasy. So many "plain and precious things" were removed from the Bible and have to be corrected by modern-day revelation. Orson Pratt, an early Mormon apostle said, "Who knows that even one verse of the whole Bible has escaped pollution?" (is this not what publisher's of new bible versions say? we have "better" manuscripts?) Mormons belittle the Bible because their beliefs and practices are totally inconsistent with it. 

2. God was once a man. (The Bible says that God is not a man. He is a Spirit.). Mormon males think that one day they will be a god JUST LIKE God the Father. A Mormon reader wrote me and I asked him if he thought he would be a god one day and he said yes (see my response here. If I were to talk with a Mormon male today, that would be the first question I'd ask--"Don't you believe that you will be a god one day?" When he said "Yes, I believe that," I'd say... 

Thank you for answering my question. The Mormons do offer the King James Bible on their commercials so I'm sure you'll have no objections to me quoting from it...does the God of the Bible say that there are many gods? 
Isaiah 43:10 ...before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. 

Isaiah 44:6 ...I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. 

Isaiah 44:8 ...Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any. 

Isaiah 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me... 

Isaiah 45:6 ...there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. 

Isaiah 45:21 ...there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. 

Isaiah 45:22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. 

Isaiah 46:9 ...I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, 

Deuteronomy 32:39 See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand. 

3. God has a physical body with which He cohabits with wives, having spiritual children which are born on this earth as human beings. God and Mary had physical relations--she was His wife (Orson Pratt, The See, p. 158). 

Black people are angels that did not fight valiantly in the war in heaven --that's why they are Black. In a letter dated 7-17-47, the first Presidency reaffirmed its historic policy concerning black people, "From the days of the prophet Joseph even until now... Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel. " (The Bible says God is no respecter of persons) 

4. All who enter the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom (the 3rd heaven of Mormon theology) will progress to godhood and be able to create their own worlds, people them via polygamy, redeem them and even provide an Adversary to test them. 

5. The Book of Mormon is divinely inspired. In actuality, it appears to be a copycat of "View of the Hebrews" which was written in 1823. Brigham H. Roberts once compiled similarities between the two books and asked this un-Mormon question, "Could all this have supplied structural work for the Book of Mormon?" (the Rocky Mountain Mason, January 1956) Smith's own mother said that the boy had always been interested in the ancient inhabitants of the American continent--their dress, mode of traveling, animals, cities, buildings, and religious worship. She said he would tell stories about them, "with much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life with them." (Biographical Sketches, pp. 84-85) The Book of Mormon is all about this continent and is consistent with Joseph Smith's youthful imaginations. 

6. There are many "Gods". The main God for earth is Elohim. Orson Pratt wrote, "If we should take a million of worlds like this and number their particles, we should find that there are more God's than there are particles of matter in those worlds." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, p. 345) (But God says in Isaiah 43:10, "...before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.") 

7. "Man is king of kings and lord of lords in embryo." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 9, p. 305) (but the Bible says that Jesus is King of Kings and Lord of Lords.) 

8. Man suffered little from Adam's fall. Adam's expulsion necessary for upward ascent. (But the Bible says that Adam's transgression had disastrous effects. The whole creation was thrown into turmoil. In Adam all die.) 

9. Deny effects of original sin and replace it with the doctrine of "original innocence"--man can commit sins, but he is not sinful by nature. (but the Bible says, "But I was shapen in iniquity") The book of Mormon presents sin as bad, however Smith had little regard for the Bible or the Book of Mormon. 

10. Salvation consists of (1) belief in Jesus--not emphasized (2) belief in prophetic calling of Joseph Smith and his successors (3) belief in cardinal doctrines of Mormonism with emphasis on a) temple work--baptism for the dead and eternal marriage b) the Word of Wisdom (a dietary law forbidding the use of tobacco, intoxicants, coffee, and tea) and c) salvation by works--they'll quote James 2:14-26 (Catholics do too)--the answer: if a person has saving faith, good works will come forth. 

11. Jesus is only our elder brother and one day we will be like Him is every respect physically, in intellect, attributes or powers (Parley Prate, Key to the Science of Theology 1948 ed., p. 39) 

12. Jesus was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. God had relations with Mary. 

13. Jesus is no more divine than any of us before His incarnation. (See John 1:1, 14 says Jesus is God) They say He was married, had children, and was crucified for His polygamy. (More blasphemy--Lord have mercy). Mormons are infamous for their polygamy although they don't officially teach it any more. 
One former Mormon testifies, "At one point, a lesson was being taught in our adult Sunday School class about polygamy -- not only its early existence in the church but how God outlawed it by revelation. My husband raised his hand and asked, "When in the history of God's people has He ever changed a law to bow to political pressure?" The teacher sputtered and asked, "Why do you ask that? Why do you ask that?" Steve was nearly ostracized for a while after that." 

They believe that God is literally a polygamist living on a planet making spiritual babies with spiritual wives. Former Mormon, Suzanne says, "I grew up being taught about the pre-existance of our spirits as literal offspring of God the Father and how if we went to the celestial kingdom we could become gods and goddesses and have our own spirit children to people worlds." http://www.nevia.net/~wchall/stories.htm 

14. Jesus' crucifixion was only the nullification of Adam's fall. Now we can work our way into heaven. (but the Bible says, not by our righteousness but according to His mercy He hath saved us.) 

15. All men, except those who have out-and-out rejected Mormonism in this life, will be given a second chance in the world to come. (But the Bible says that this life is the time for decision. After death comes judgment.) 

16. The 1833 edition of "Doctrine and Covenants" talks about the gift of God called working with the rod--this is a divining rod. This was changed in the 1835 edition with Joseph Smith later observing that a divining rod would hardly be a proper gift from God (divination is witchcraft). 

17. One Mormon wrote and told me that Jesus atoned for our sins in the garden of Gethsemane, not on the cross. This was confirmed by a Mormon quote-- "In the Garden of Gethsemane, Christ suffered for the sins of all mankind, thus opening the way for all of us to repent and free ourselves from the bondage of sin." (Ensign Magazine, April, 1981, page 19, see caption.) That's in an article by Elder Lund and it's called "Salvation by Grace or By Works." 

18. Former Mormon quotes: 
One former Mormon, Suzanne, says, "I learned that God was once a man, and that it was because of the principle of eternal progression that we could become gods like him. I also learned I had a Mother in Heaven somewhere along the way -- whether I learned this as a child or an adult, I don't know. I learned that the Book of Mormon was the word of God and that the Bible was so far as it was translated correctly." 

Another former Mormon, Evelyn, says, "...Mormons claim to be Christians, to agree with the Bible and Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, this is a masquerade! Mormons are trying desparately to appear as Christian as possible. Their latest video, "The Lamb of God," is a dramatization of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It presents a basic orthodox Christian message. They then attach their name, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints," to the end of the presentation, which gives the appearance that Mormons are simply another orthodox Christian church! 

"I would have no problem with this...if the whole truth was presented up front - but it's not. Why don't the Mormons say on their video that "we are Mormons who believe that every Mormon member of the priesthood hopes to become a God, rule over a planet and have multiple wives in heaven. Also, Joseph Smith proclaimed in his First Vision that ALL the religions are absolutely wrong and have been for 19 centuries, and Christianity disappeared from the earth; Mormonism is the restored gospel and the only true church. Also, all the people who think they are Christians are corrupt and their creeds are an abomination. By the way, Jesus is the spirit brother of the devil, God has a wife in heaven, has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's, and is not a spirit. The Bible is not the only revelation of God, the Book of Mormon is "ANOTHER" testament of Jesus Christ in these last days. 

"These declarations were made by Mormon Prophets Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and others. The truth is that the Mormon church and their missionaries tend to to hide that fact that they really believe these things and act as if they agree with mainline Christianity which they refer to as Protestants or Evangelicals." 

19. The LDS Temple Endowment page (this is a good site to go to for additional information on oaths, endowments and other wacky tenets of Mormonism like the Adam-God doctrine, the Oath of Vengance, and Death Penalties) offers this information-- 
Some Preliminary Information on Mormon Doctrine. 

The LDS Church professes to be a restoration of the primitive church established by Jesus. Following his crucifixion, the primitive church is believed to have fallen into a state of apostasy which reigned until 1820, when Joseph Smith, a young man living in New York, was selected by God to be his instrument in bringing forth the "restoration of the fullness of times." This restoration included the power to act in God's name (Priesthood authority), and faithful Mormon Priesthood holders have the power to perform acts with eternal consequences. Priesthood functions include blessing and naming new born children, baptism, confirmation, blessing the sick, and conferring Priesthood authority on others. Shortly before his martyrdom, Joseph Smith introduced several remarkable concepts into Mormonism. One of these was that family ties could survive the grave and that worthy couples who were "sealed" by Priesthood authority could remain married throughout eternity in heaven (the 'Celestial Kingdom'). Another was that there were many Gods, although there is only One True God as far as the inhabitants of the Earth are concerned. God, he revealed, is an exalted man who had lived faithfully on another planet, died, resurrected and now sits enthroned in heaven. Because of his love for us, God provided a way for us, his children, to overcome the consequences of the fall of man (Adam's transgression, which resulted in death for humanity). The redemption of humanity is in part brought about by the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, but one must also assume certain covenants and receive certain Priesthood secrets in order to become a God. This is one of the reasons for building temples."

20. Satan and Jesus are spirit brothers (see Ensign Magazine, Dec 1980, p. 5). Ultimate blasphemy. 

21. Satan wanted to redeem mankind! See Pearl of Great Price, Moses 4:1. I have this contemptible book and have read this for myself. Find revealing, hard-to-find Mormon source documentation and other revealing resources at Reason. The Tanner's (former Mormons now Christians) website is at http://www.utlm.org. 

22. Blood atonement (murder of members) for certain sins--straight from the horses' mouths. These excerpts came from Saints Alive in Jesus which is an apologetics ministry dealing with Mormonism and Freemasonry. The following in excerpted from a transcript of Dialogue radio programs. They were broadcast daily by Saints Alive throughout Utah and Idaho during the 1980s. You can find the entire article at http://saintsalive.com/mormonism/bloodatonement.htm. 
President Grant, in Journal of Discourses (JOD), Volume IV, page 51 of the 1856 edition, says, "And you who have committed sins that cannot be forgiven through baptism, let your blood be shed and let the smoke ascend that incense thereof may come up before God as an atonement for your sins, and that the sinners in Zion may be afraid." 

President Grant, in Journal of Discourses (JOD), Volume IV, page 49 of the 1856 edition, says, "I say that there are men and women that I would advise to go to the President immediately and ask him to appoint a committee to attend to their case and then let a place be selected and let that committee shed their blood." 

Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses (JOD), Volume IV, page 53 of the 1856 edition, says, "There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilled upon the ground, that the smoke thereof may ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins. I know when you hear my brethren telling you about cutting people off from the earth you consider it strong doctrine. But, it is to save them, not to destroy them." 

Then in another paragraph (same source), "I know that there are transgressors, who, if they knew themselves and the only condition upon which they could obtain forgiveness would beg of their brethren to shed their blood. I'll say further, I have had men come to me and offer their lives to atone for their sins. It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall, and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit. " 

Again, President Grant on page 50 (same source), "I believe that there are a great many, and if they are covenant breakers, we need a place designated where we can shed their blood. They are a perfect nuisance and I want them cut off and the sooner it is done, the better. We have been trying long enough with these people and I go in for letting the sword of the Almighty be unsheathed, not only in word, but in deed." 

Brigham Young, Volume IV, page 219, "All mankind loves themselves and let these principles be known by an individual and he would be glad to have his blood shed. That would be loving themselves even unto an eternal exaltation. Will you love your brothers or sisters likewise when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of their blood? Will you love that man and woman well enough to shed their blood? I refer you to plenty of instances where men have been righteously slain in order to atone for their sins. I have known a great many men who have left this church for whom there is no chance whatever for exaltation. But, if their blood had been spilled it would have been better for them. This is loving our neighbor as ourselves (page 220). If he needs help, help him. If he wants his salvation and it's necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it. That is the way to love mankind." 

Heber C. Kimball on page 173 of Volume IV says, "But this people will never, no never, prosper to a high degree until we make a public example of men that have been warned and forewarned. We will take them and slay them before this people." 

In Volume X, page 110, Brigham Young says, "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African or black race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty under the law of God is death on the spot. This will always be so." 

In The History of the Church, Joseph Smith, Volume V, page 296, "I replied, I was opposed to hanging even if a man kill another. I will shoot him, or cut off his head, spill his blood on the ground and let the smoke thereof ascend up to God, and if ever I have the privilege of making a law on that subject I will have it so." 

Orson Pratt, in The Seer, page 223, "The people in Utah are the only ones in this nation who have taken effectual measures, we will not say to suppress, for the word is entirely inapplicable to them, but to prevent adulteries and criminal connections between the sexes. The punishment in that territory for those crimes is death to both male and female on the spot."

23. A former Mormon says in a radio interview: 
"Now here's how we [Mormons] get to heaven: 'Passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being able to give them the key words, the signs, the tokens pertaining to the holy priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of earth and hell.' This has nothing to do with the shed blood of Jesus Christ, because we don't deal with that in the temple, Jim. We swear blood oaths to obedience, and consecration and sacrifice, and obedience to the law of the priesthood. We must wear an undergarment that has occult markings of an occult talisman on it. We have all the body parts and privates washed, anointed with oil and blessed, but nowhere are we taught the doctrine of the shed blood of Jesus Christ at the cross of Calvary. In fact, I don't really recall it as a part of the temple ordinance anywhere. 

"We go into the Lone and Dreary World and we learn secret handshakes, secret signs and penalties, and we learn the words that we have to know, and our secret name, but where are we taught the shed blood of Jesus Christ or the blood atonement doctrine? The only doctrine of blood that we deal with in the Mormon Temple, Jim, is that we'll have our throats slit from ear to ear, or our chest ripped from breast to breast and our heart ripped out, or we'll have our bowels cut open and our intestines spewn upon the ground. What do you think those signs are when you bring your thumb across your throat from ear to ear, friend? It's not talking about the shed blood of Jesus Christ; it's talking about your shed blood."

24. They baptize for the dead. That is why genealogy researchers go to the Mormons for lists of names. They collect them and think that they gain merit for baptizing by proxy for dead people! That's part of what they are doing in those temples! The LDS Endowment Page says this-- 
Salvation for the Dead: Work by Proxy in the Temples
Mormonism teaches that all people will have an opportunity to accept or reject the restored gospel. After death the deceased enters the "spirit world" where he awaits resurrection at the second coming of Christ. If the deceased is non-Mormon, or never had a fair opportunity to accept the Mormon gospel, the spirits of deceased Mormons are called upon to perform missionary labor. Mormons believe that the spirits of the dead have the same personalities and tendencies as when they were living. Thus, a good man may accept the gospel whereas as evil man may not. In order for the deceased to be worthy of entering heaven he must receive the same ordinances (by proxy) as a living human being. This means that he must be baptized, by proxy, and also be ordained to the Priesthood and receive his endowments and temple marriage. The LDS Church's emphasis on genealogy is to further "temple work" by performing the temple ordinances on as many dead persons as possible.

322 years before Josiah was born, > a prophet (unnamed) in I Kings 13 predicted that someday, > a man named "Josiah" would come > and destroy some altars at Bethel..... > 

> 348 years later, Josiah came and destroyed some altars in Bethel, > and while leaving that area, > stopped at a grave, > and asked whose it was, > the people of that area had passed along that prophecy > (for the book of the law had been lost for many years) > and they told Josiah of that prophecy... > 

> It showed to Josiah the foreknowledge of God, > for God had had that prophecy made, long, long before the birth of Josiah, > and Josiah's mother and father did not even know of the prophecy, > and Josiah, until he had done so, did not know of it... > 

> The God we worship, does have foreknowledge.. > . And can do such things... > 

But let me add another story to this one.. > . Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, > and wanted Christians to think that this book was the plan of salvation, > and wanted to convince Christians that it was a necessary part of God's plan. > 

> So, he also took the Bible, went to the book of Genesis, > and added a verse to chapter 50... > It reads: > "And that seer I bless... > and his name shall be after the name of his father,... > for the thing which the Lord shall bring forth by his hand > shall bring my people unto salvation." > (From Gen. 50:33, Inspired Version by Joseph Smith) > 

> That additional verse was added after Joseph Smith Jr. > wrote the book of Mormon, > and long, long after Moses wrote the book of Genesis... > and claims to be `inspired' of God... > 

> But our God has foreknowledge, > and could have had Moses insert that verse, if it were truly of God. > That would have been evidence for Mormonism... > The readers of Genesis in their version > are likely misled to the idea that Moses did write it, > and that gives them credence to believe that the Book of Mormon > was long ago predicted and meant to come, by God... > 

> The god of Mormonism did not have foreknowledge > to know what would happen when Joseph Smith Jr came, > and had to add the verse later, > after the heretical addition to the Bible was penned... > But... > The God of Josiah, knew that Josiah would come, > had it prophesied, written down in I Kings 13:1-4. > and later fulfilled in II Kings 23:14-18... > 

> the story of Josiah shows God's foreknowledge and omniscience... > the story of Joseph Smith Jr. shows deceit, > adding to the Word of God, > and a taking for granted that mankind is gullible and easily misled.... > 

> murjahel from Prophet's Board > Re: God's foreknowledge Posted 7-20-2001 11:34 > 

The following are from, "Pastor's Perspective"-- 

"Pastors' Perspective!" June 1999
Supporting Christian Witness To Mormons
Because "some men...are...wanting to change the Gospel of Christ." 
Galatians 1:7
----------
1. Mormons: Their Maximum Heaven
2. Mormons: Heaven-Lite For You
3. Mormons: Heaven-Lite-II For Others
----------
Mormons talk about "returning to Heavenly Father" after death - - and 
they mean it literally, because they think they lived there long ago - - 
or they mention their desire for eternal "exaltation." "Going to heaven"

is not a Mormon goal, because essentially everyone goes to a heaven. 
Here's more info.
----------
1. Mormons are urged to do all the things required for the maximum 
eternal reward. There are three heavens, called kingdoms, and in the 
highest (called the celestial kingdom) there are three "heavens or 
degrees." The top heaven in the top kingdom is called "exaltation," a 
state in which men become gods and creators and, with their wives, expand

their families forever. Each heavenly couple will become everything that

the Mormon Heavenly Father and Mother are now.

The list of requirements for exaltation is daunting - - and maybe 
endless; the standard is perfect execution.

Exaltation is only a small part of the celestial kingdom. "Valiant" but 
unexalted Mormons will occupy the rest of the kingdom, plus some from 
among the dead for whom Mormons perform proxy or vicarious temple 
rituals. Only in the celestial kingdom will people be with the Mormon 
Heavenly Father and Mother.

When Mormons speak of the "eternal family" or use their slogan, "families

are forever," they are speaking of exaltation, not the larger celestial 
kingdom or a lower kingdom.
-----
2. According to Mormon doctrine, those not quite qualified to be in 
Heavenly Father's presence can be in Christ's presence in a place called 
the terrestrial kingdom. This kingdom is for those who are not Mormons 
but are "upright and honorable," and for Mormons "lukewarm in their 
devotion to the [Mormon] Church."

Often Mormon missionaries will grant graciously that good Christians will

inhert the terrestrial kingdom - - but will offer something more, 
something better: the celestial kingdom, or a chance, even, for 
exaltation.
-----
3. The telestial kingdom, the lowest heaven, is for essentially all 
others. Who will be there? The "carnal, sensual, and devilish; who have

chosen the vain philosophies of the world rather than accept the 
testimony of Jesus; who have been liars and thieves, sorcerers and 
adulterers, blasphemers and murderers." These people will be "servants 
of the Most High" - - but forbidden to be in the presence of God and 
Christ.

Mormons believe it is a glorious place, nonetheless, surpassing "all 
mortal understanding." It is not hell, perdition, or a purgatory - - 
just the permanent degree of glory earned by "most of the adult people 
who have lived from the day of Adam to the present time."
All Mormon heavens are rewards based on the Mormon principle that "no 
person will add to his position or glory in the hereafter by gaining an 
unearned blessing."
----------
Mormons often sound better. Grace, atonement, salvation, eternal life - 
- all are part of the Mormon vocabulary - - and all are subordinated to 
the principle. Their message: Christ made it possible to earn life in a

heaven.
----------
----------

"Pastors' Perspective!" - - A support ministry of
Immanuel Bible Church

"Pastors' Perspective!" May 1999
Supporting Christian Witness To Mormons
Because "some men...are...wanting to change the Gospel of Christ." 
Galatians 1:7
----------
1. Whelmed By Love
2. "The Blessings Of Eternal Gods"
3. Christ's "Authorized Successor"
----------
1. Mormons love, and that wins converts. People experience the love of 
Mormon neighbors, coworkers, and missionaries. Mormons speak of their 
love for "Heavenly Father" and for "the Lord." Mormon missionaries tell 
potential converts they love them. Mormon leaders challenge members to 
love strangers, neighbors, family; to listen; to share; to serve; to 
forgive.

Even Christians may overlook serious doctrinal error when they sense the 
love of Mormons, reasoning that Mormons say they are Christians, and they

love. and Jesus said....

Sure enough, Jesus said, "By this shall all men know that ye are my 
disciples, if ye have love one to another." But He also said, "For if ye

love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those

that love them." (John 13:35; Luke 6:32.) Yes: Christians love. 
Sinners love. And Mormons.

Suggestion: When Mormons say they love God or Jesus Christ, the subject 
becomes God or Jesus Christ, not the love they feel. They may love their

God, a perfected mortal man, and their Jesus Christ, sired when God 
visited Mary bodily; but these two Gods of Mormon faith are foreign to 
even a broad definition of Christian faith. Warn the whelmed.
-----
2. Here's a quote from Mormon authorities: "Every foundation stone that

is laid for a temple, and every temple completed ...invokes and calls 
down upon us the blessings of eternal gods, and those who reside in their

presence" (Mormon president George Q. Cannon, 1877; cited by Mormon 
apostle Boyd K. Packer, now the senior member of The Twelve, in his 1980 
book, The Holy Temple.).

The Mormon church is engaged now in a temple-building spree that will 
double the number of temples, from 50-some to more than 100. Fair 
questions for Mormons: "Would Christians invoke 'the blessings of 
eternal gods'? Why do Mormons do it? Are 'the gods' blessing you?"
-----
3. A Sampler: Mormons Promoting Joseph Smith.

--IN FEBRUARY a Mormon general authority, John K. Carmack, described 
Joseph Smith as "the authorized successor to the Savior and His
apostles."
Reported in Church News, Feb. 20, '99

--WHEN ASKED "What makes [the Mormon] church different from other 
churches?" a Mormon leader responded, "If Moses were on the earth today, 
would you be interested in what he had to say? Well, that's our message 
to the world. There is a prophet of God [successor to Joseph Smith] on 
the earth today who has the same power and authority that Moses had. God

directs His Church through his prophet today, just as He did in Moses' 
day."
After relating that story in his 1993 book, Our Search for Happiness, M. 
Russell Ballard, currently the seventh-ranking member of The Twelve, 
wrote, "So, yes, we are different. But it is an important
difference...."

Christians can agree! Mormonism is different - - in important ways.

--"...NO MAN OR WOMAN ...will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of 
God without the consent of Joseph Smith. ...every man or woman must have 
the certificate of Joseph Smith,...a passport to their entrance into the 
mansion where God and Christ are."
Brigham Young, cited in The Ensign, June '94
-----
Bottom line:
--Item 1: Love Mormons. But trust truth.
--Item 2: "The Gods" of Mormon religion are compelling reason, and 
sufficient, for rejecting it.
--Item 3: The lionized and revered Joseph Smith (1805-1846) dominates 
Mormon religion.
----------

"Pastors' Perspective!" - - A support ministry of
Immanuel Bible Church




. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

| Eternal Life | Hell is Real | The Gospel According to John |
| My Testimony |Why I Read the Authorized KJV Bible|
| The Hymnal | Messianic Prophecies Fulfilled by Jesus Christ |
| Epistle Dedicatory to the Authorized King James of 1611 |


Home

 

http://tinyurl.com/heavensense

 

Alert!!!!
The Roman Catholic "Church" is Not Christian 

Practically all precepts of the Roman Catholic religion contradict the Bible repeatedly. It is the largest cult in the world and most preachers will not openly say so because it is so large. For Catholics who read this, please remember this: the person that tells you the truth is the one that cares. 

For a glimpse of the atrocities committed by the Roman Catholic religion, do a net search on the Inquisition or the Crusades. During the Inquisition, the Catholic religion killed millions. Why? Primarily to suppress any and all opposition to the pope. Side "benefits" included taking the material wealth of its victims and showing the pope's power. The Catholic Inquisitors tortured, crippled, burned, and imprisioned millions of people. Whatever happened to love your enemies? (Matthew 5:44) 

Before we get to specific problems with Catholic doctrine, let's review how this bloodthirsty organization treated a man who simply wanted to get the Bible into the hands of the common people. In the late 1300s John Wycilf translated the scriptures from the Latin Vulgate. Some 40 odd years after his death, the Catholic religion dug up his bones and burned them calling him an arch-heretick. In the 1500's William Tyndale sought to translate the Bible into the language of the common people, English. He could not gain approval from the Catholic religon so he worked as an outlaw on the run in Europe, translating the Bible. He was eventually captured, condemned and executed in 1536. It is because of people like these men, Tyndale and Wycliffe, that we have the scriptures today. If the Catholic religion had its way, we'd still be in ignorance about the Bible and enslaved to the pope. Time fails me here to tell of other marytrs like John Hus, John Rogers, etc. who were killed by popish persons. 

I'll list the catholic tradition first and then what the Bible has to say about the matter. 

* * * *

CATHOLIC TRADITION - Call priests father, e.g., Father McKinley. 

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - 
Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
* * * *

CATHOLIC TRADITION - Forbidding the priesthood to marry. 

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - 
1) It is devilish to forbid God's people to marry when He has given marriage to be received with thanksgiving. 

1 Timothy
4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. 

2) Peter was married (remember the pope is supposedly continuing the apostolic line through Peter). 

Matthew
8:14 And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever. 

Mark
1:30 But Simon's wife's mother lay sick of a fever, and anon they tell him of her. 

Luke
4:38 And he arose out of the synagogue, and entered into Simon's house. And Simon's wife's mother was taken with a great fever; and they besought him for her. 

3) Paul, a great apostle, remained single; however he made it very clear that he could marry if he wanted to. 

1 Corinthians
9:5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? 
* * * *

CATHOLIC TRADITION - Mary never had other children after the Lord Jesus. A perpetual virgin. 

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - Mary and Joseph indeed had children. They were the Lord's half brothers and sisters for their father was Joseph and mother was Mary. 
Matthew
13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
13:56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? 

Mark
6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
* * * *

CATHOLIC TRADITION - Mary is the queen of heaven. 

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - Worshipping the queen of heaven (which is not the Mary of the Bible) is worshipping another god and it provokes the Lord to anger. 
Jeremiah
7:17 Seest thou not what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem?
7:18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.
7:19 Do they provoke me to anger? saith the LORD: do they not provoke themselves to the confusion of their own faces?
* * * *

CATHOLIC TRADITION - Mary is the mother of God. 

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - Mary is the mother of the earthly Jesus, not God. Jesus pre- existed from everlasting as God (see John 1:1). When He came to redeem mankind, He laid aside His glory and was made like unto sinful man so that He could take our punishment (Hebrew 2:9). God has no mother. He has lived from everlasting which means He had no beginning. 
Isaiah
43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. [If Mary gave birth to God, she'd be God.] 

Psalm
93:2 Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting. 

Micah 
5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler [Jesus] in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. 

Philippians
2:6 Who [Jesus], being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
* * * *

CATHOLIC TRADITION - Pope called Holy Father. 

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - The term Holy Father is only found one time in the entire Bible. It was when Jesus prayed before He and His disciples went to the garden of Gethsemane. He referred to God the Father as Holy Father. It is blasphemy to call a man by God's name 
John
17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
* * * *

CATHOLIC TRADITION - Purgatory, nuns, popes. 

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - None of these is mentioned in the Bible. It is a sin to add to the Bible. 
Proverbs
30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. 

The pope is a man who takes upon himself honor which belongs to no human being. Even the very name by which he allows himself to be called (Holy Father) is highly presumptuous and blasphemous (see above). 

One does not need the pope to determine what God's will is. The Bible says that God has given the Holy Ghost to each believer and that He (the Holy Ghost) guides and leads us into all truth. All a believer needs is the Bible and the Holy Ghost to know the will of the Lord. Popery has been treacherous, but worse, each pope has been the blind leading the blind. Jesus said that both will fall into the ditch. Catholics, come out of this system that cannot save and know Jesus for youself, intimate and up-close. 

NOTE: Purgatory is supposedly a place where a person is purified of sins--even popes supposedly go there. The Bible says that Jesus Christ is the one that purifies us of our sins. Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus.... When a person dies their eternal home is sealed--heaven or hell--no in between. Hebrews 9:27 ...it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.
* * * *

CATHOLIC TRADITION - Venerating/worshipping images. Pope bows to statues of Mary, people worship the eucharist and have statues/candles in their homes and churches. 

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - It is idolatry to venerate images. We are not even supposed to make them. 
Exodus
20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God...
* * * *

CATHOLIC TRADITION - The mass. Through transubstantiation, the wafer/host and the wine supposedly become the actual blood and body of Jesus Christ when the priest prays over them. 

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - Jesus died once for sins, never to be repeated. He sits on the right hand of God and does not reappear in the mass as a mass of blood and flesh. 
Hebrews
10:12 But this man [Jesus], after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
10:13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
10:15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. 

John
19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. 

1 Corinthians
11:24 And when he [Jesus] had given thanks, he brake it [bread], and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come (not for the forgiveness of sins or to receive Jesus).
* * * *

CATHOLIC TRADITION - Saved, in part, by good works. 

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - Good works are the fruits that grow out of being saved. They do not make you saved. An apple does not make its tree an apple tree, it was already an apple tree before any apples appeared. When you see the apples; however, you know what kind of tree it is. If a person is saved, he will shew forth good works because he has the spirit of Christ in him. The good works don't make him saved only the blood of Jesus can do that. 
I John
1:7b ...the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. 

Acts 16:31b
...believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. 

Romans
3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

What about James 2:20 "faith without works is dead"? 

The kind of faith that saves is a faith that shows forth the works of God. Even devils believe in Jesus and tremble (James 2:19). Many people believe in Jesus but they won't follow Him. They have a faith, but not the kind that saves. If a person has true faith in Jesus, the Holy Ghost dwells in him and will cause good works will show forth in his life. The good works confirm the faith by which the person was saved. James 2:21-23 uses Abraham as an example. Abraham believed God so when God asked him to sacrifice his son Isaac, Abraham, out of his faith in God, offered up Isaac. 

* * * *

CATHOLIC TRADITION - The church is founded on Peter. 

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - Jesus Christ is the foundation of the church. Peter was a man like you and me. Jesus called Peter Satan in Matthew 16:23 when Peter rebuked Jesus dying. When Cornelius tried to worship Peter, Peter responded, "Stand up; I myself also am a man." (Acts 10:26). The pope needs to remember Acts 10:26 when he has men bowing to him and kissing his hand like he is worthy of worship. 
1 Corinthians
3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 

Matthew
21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected [Jesus], the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
* * * *

CATHOLIC TRADITION - Confessing sins to a priest. Petitioning saints and Mary. 

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - We are to confess our sins and needs to God alone. 
I John
1:9 If we confess our sins, he [God] is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 

Matthew
6:9, 12 After this manner...pray ye: Our Father... forgive us.... 

1 Timothy
2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus [not Mary, not saints, not priests, not the pope]; 

I John 2:1, ...And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 
* * * *

There are many other scriptures that could have been used here to testify against the doctrines of the catholic religion. There are also many other doctrines of the catholic religion which could have been refuted (e.g. the sacraments, receiving the Holy Ghost, salvation through the catholic religion, penance, rosary, etc.). 
* * * *

The Catholic religion has a history of taking the money of poor widows in order to say masses for the dead (which do no good) and collecting the material possessions of nuns. In Italy, the heart of Roman Catholicism, there is an often used saying that goes, "Without money, they don't sing the mass." That is really pitiful on several fronts--1) mass is blasphemous and people who trust in it are hell-bound 2) there's no such thing as purgatory and 3) the gift of God is without price. 

Roman Catholicism today is probably the wealthiest government in the world. It owns a good share of America's hospitals and has healthy real estate interests. The bottom line is, if you want to get right with God, you have to go through His Son, Jesus Christ, not some religious organization. Prayerfully, Tracy.


| Eternal Life | Hell is Real | The Gospel According to John |
| My Testimony |Why I Read the Authorized KJV Bible|
| The Hymnal | Messianic Prophecies Fulfilled by Jesus Christ |
| Epistle Dedicatory to the Authorized King James of 1611 |



Home

http://tinyurl.com/heavensense

http://tinyurl.com/supportHeavenSenseChurch

 

The HOLY BIBLE, concordance and other and study tools >>>>>>> CLICK >>>>>>>   http://HEsaid.ws   !!!!!!!

PEACE AND LOVE !!!!!!!



top