Dr. David Berlinski: What Does It Take for Change? (Clip 5)

Everybody has a favorite David Berlinski story. Right? Sure you do, you just don’t know it yet. Anyway, this one is my favorite. In this clip Berlinski explores the evolution of the cow to whale concept. In evolutionary circles it is a popular belief that the whale was once a land animal. Berlinski uses the cow as a crude example of an ancestor to the whale to examine the possible changes that the cow would have to undergo to make the transition from land to sea.

I have had many creation vs. evolution discussions and often the whale will emerge as a topic of interest to the evolutionary model. So, this video has become a phildowd.com favorite, and since it is so near and dear to me, I can’t resist sharing it. Enjoy!

Share

Day Four

On the fourth day of creation, God created the sun, moon and stars to give light to the earth. If God created them on the fourth day, is this proof that the first three days were longer than 24 hour days?

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day

Day-age creationists have the theory that this is an indicator of an old earth age. The presumption is that the absences of these celestial bodies imply the impossibility of a 24 hour day. So, day one through three was probably much longer than a 24 hour celestial cycle, which could be the answer to the evolutionist assertion that the earth is old. This theory leads us down a path that causes us to contradict scripture and undermines a vital principle of God’s word.

Read more…

Share

For this they are willingly ignorant.

When one spends anytime reading the bible, eventually one will begin reading certain portions of it over again. Being the living word that it is, often something new will hit you like a ton of bricks. This portion in 2Peter is one of those passages.

2Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

Peter starts off by telling us that there will be scoffers that will question the existence of God, or at least question His imminent return. I think it is fair to say that they question His existence altogether. “All things continue as it has since the beginning of [time].” Remember, they say this because they walk after “their own lust,” in other words, they wish to live their lives as if they aren’t really accountable to a higher authority.

“For this they are willingly ignorant.” Because the scoffers want to live their lives without God, they make themselves ignorant about a worldwide flood. If there is then evidence of the Great Flood, then that is ultimate proof of God. If there is a God then there is one to which we are accountable.

There is evidence of a worldwide flood, so much evidence that evolutionist will try to place that flood about 4 billion years ago, when really it was about 4500 years ago. If there was water 4 billion years ago the evolution must be true and God a lie. For this they are willingly ignorant.

Share

Bill Schulz of FNC’s RedEye buys opportunity to take a swipe at Inhofe and Creation Scientist

On a recent edition of RedEye on the Fox News Channel, Greg Gutfeld and panel explore the whereabouts of Al Gore in light of all the snowfall occurring nationwide. The insinuations of “junk science” are dropped a few times topping off with a clip of Neil Cavuto interviewing Senator Inhofe with Inhofe inviting Al Gore to address the greatest scientific scandal in history.

Co-host Bill Schulz apparently never made it to the pre-show dress rehearsal to get a heads up on what the topics of the day would be. Either that or the overwhelming desire to knee-jerk a response over took his ability to rationally add to the conversation. I’m betting the latter was the case. Schulz instead took that opportunity to blast Inhofe for not believing evolution and belittling Creation Scientists saying, “those two words [creation and scientist] should never ever meet in the same sentence.”

Bill, I know you must have bruised your knee terribly on the bottom of that table while responding to the story, but I must point out one thing that you missed while on your anti-Inhofe tirade. Inhofe and the Creation Scientist were right on global warming. (emphasis added to further annoy Bill Schultz).

Share
Go to top