Sister Sylvia was up in years, and was in a nursing home with a pretty good case of dementia.  The congregation had prayed for her healing, but there appeared to be no answer from God.  I stopped to visit with her.  Sylvia recognized me and began to recount a beautiful, funny testimony—and she laughed with joy.  As I remember it, a few minutes later, she told the same story—with the same joyous results, as if it had happened for the very first time. Something dawned on me: God had truly answered our prayers.  In Sylvia’s last days, all her memories were sweet; she remembered from joy to joy. 

But, the memories of the wicked are of a different sort.  Imagine recounting a memory of evil regard incessantly—over and over again.  Now imagine dying without Christ and being cast into eternal, cognizant damnation.  What doleful memory will play—like a broken record—over and over again? 

Have you been born again?  John 3:3:

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Have you repented of your sins, believing upon the shed blood of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins?  If not, why not?  Make today the beginning of glorious memories, ones that will last forever.  Click onto “Further with Jesus” for childlike instructions and immediate entry into the Kingdom of God.  NOW FOR TODAY’S SUBJECT.  

GOD SAID, Genesis 1:1:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

GOD SAID, Exodus 20:11:

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

MAN SAID: Anyone with a smidgeon of learning knows the universe and earth are billions of years old.  No educated person would embrace creationists and their young-earth foolishness! 

Now THE RECORD: It always remains the same.  It is an immutable law: Man’s carnal wisdom that denies God’s Holy Word always proves wrong and deadly, no matter how diligently they try to patch up their unbelief.  Galatians 6:7:

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

It is an immutable law that not only affects everyday life and generations to come, but also the results will speak for all eternity. 

GodSaidManSaid’s regular visitors will remember this principle: Man’s truth of yesterday is debunked by man’s truth of today; man’s truth of today will be debunked by man’s truth of tomorrow.  Man’s “truth” is not truth. 

Several weeks ago, we published a four-part series titled “Things We Know to be True: Scientific American Challenges God.”  The monthly publication, Scientific American, wanted to set the fact record—the truth record—straight. There were five science writers in this multi-page feature.  Their lead writer was Bible-skeptic Michael Shermer.  GodSaidManSaid addressed four of his “facts.”  Several paragraphs from feature one follow:

Among the leaders of carnaldom, good has become evil (Isaiah 5:20) and the truth has become a lie.  A last-days sign of God’s soon-coming, terrible, global judgment is what II Thessalonians 2:10 identifies as the “deceivableness of unrighteousness.”  The Biblical coining of the word righteousness takes place in Genesis 15:6 and is spoken in regard to Abraham, who is known as the father of faith:

And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

Righteousness is faith and the actions—or works—that are the result of that faith.  Unrighteousness is simply unbelief and the deeds that follow it.  God’s Word calls the results of unrighteousness “confusion of face” (Daniel 9:8). 

Confusion of face is rampant.  Today’s new questions are:  “What am I?  Am I a boy or a girl—or something else?  Now, what bathroom should I use?” 

The deceivableness of unrighteousness is unashamedly ballyhooed in the November 2016 issue of Scientific American.  The headline on the front cover reads: “5 Scientific Facts (That People Often Get Wrong).”  When you arrive at the multi-page feature inside, you find this headline: “5 Things We Know to be True,” with the subhead, “A compendium of irrefutable facts for these fact-starved times.”  A few sentences from the prelude follow:

Scientific truths are always provisional at some level.  We once believed that the continents were fixed on the surface of Earth; now we know they move.  We thought the universe was static; now we know it’s expanding.  We thought margarine was healthier than butter and that hormone-replacement therapy was the right treatment for vast numbers of postmenopausal women; now we know better.  [End of quote]

GodSaidManSaid would just like to point out a few other things they’ve gotten wrong:

• Ramapithecus;
• Australopithecines;
• Peking Man;
• Java Man;
• Neanderthal Man;
• Cro-Magnon Man;
• Nebraska Man;
• Piltdown Man;
• Lucy;
• China’s fake chicken-lizard;
• Rethink fossilization, after soft tissue was discovered in dinosaur bones. 

And, we should add:

• Raw milk;
• Raw honey;
• Whole wheat;
• Olive oil;
• Salt;
• Eggs;
• Circumcision;
• Breast-feeding;
• The U.S. food pyramid;
• And so much more. 

Now, back to the prelude in Scientific American:

We ordinarily report on the latest advances in scientific and technological research, but we thought it appropriate to take a step back and discuss some of the science’s firmly established facts.  There is essentially no debate among legitimate scientists about these truths, which are based on verifiable evidence, which have been accepted for decades, and which have only become more strongly established as new evidence continues to accumulate.  [End of quote]

The lead article in “5 Things We Know to be True” is authored by Michael Shermer.  Speaking of the theory of evolution, Shermer writes:

But it doesn’t take a rocket scientist—or an English naturalist—to understand why a theory on the origin of species by means of natural selection would be so controversial.  If new species are created naturally—not supernaturally—what place, then, for God?  No wonder more than a century and a half later people of some religious faiths still find the theory so terribly threatening.  But in those intervening years, scientists have found so much evidence in support of the theory that it would be truly astonishing if it turned out not to be true—as shocking as if the germ theory of disease fell apart or if astrophysicists were forced to abandon the big bang model of the universe. 

The author attempts to buttress his “truth” with an appeal to radiometric dating.  He writes:

The consistency of dating techniques also gives us confidence that the theory is true.  Uranium-lead, rubidium-strontium, and potassium-argon dating, for example, are all reasonably consistent in their determination of the age of rocks and fossils.  The ages are given in estimates, but the margins of error are in the range of 1 percent.  It’s not as if one scientist finds that a fossil hominin is 1.2 million years old while another one finds it is 10,000 years old. 

According to Shermer, “The ages are given in estimates, but the margins of error are in the range of one percent.  It is not as if one scientist finds that a fossil hominin is 1.2 million years old while another finds it is 10,000 years old.”

Is he correct?   Just one example in this feature is Mount St. Helens.  The volcanic catastrophe began in 1980.  Her rock age was measured by the potassium-argon method.  The results?

♦ Lava rock, 350,000 years old.
♦ Constituent minerals, 2.8 million years. 

When measured, the volcanic rock was less than 10 years old. 

One last point concerning various aging methods is addressed by Ann Gibbons:

Ann Gibbons wrote in the January 2, 1998 issue of Science an unsettling article for evolutionists under the heading, “Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock.”

Gibbons reports:

Mitochondrial DNA appears to mutate much faster than expected, prompting new DNA forensics procedures and raising troubling questions about the dating of evolutionary events.  In 1991, Russians exhumed a Siberian grave containing nine skeletons thought to be the remains of the last Russian tsar, Nicholas II, and his family and retinue, who were shot by firing squad in 1918.  But two bodies were missing, so no one could be absolutely certain of the remains.  And DNA testing done in 1992—expected to settle the issue quickly—instead raised a new mystery.

The mystery concerned the dates relating to the clock rate.  It appears that mutations occur at a much more rapid rate than had been imagined.  Although there seems to be considerable debate about the cause of the faster rate, the faster rate has been verified by independent investigations. 

Again, Gibbons says:

Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate.  For example, researchers have calculated that the “mitochondrial Eve”—the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people—lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa.  Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6,000 years old.  [End of quotes]

Since that feature was published 18 years ago, situations have not improved. [End of quotes]

In “‘Things We Know to be True:’ Scientific American Challenges God (Part 2),” GodSaidManSaid addresses the illusion put forth that the whale’s tiny “pelvis” is the evolutionary remains of land-legs once owned by a water buffalo, a bear, a giraffe, a camel—you fill in the rest.  Mr. Shermer writes:

Modern whales retain a tiny pelvis for hind legs that existed in their land-mammal ancestors. [End of quote]

In March 2016, Acts & Facts writes under the heading “Are Whales and Evolution Joined at the Hip?” the following:

For decades, evolutionists did not search for any other uses for these bones.  Why?  Because a vestigial pelvis was what they expected to find. 

Matthew Dean of the University of Southern California and Jim Dines of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County examined “hip” bones in whale and dolphin skeletons.  Their painstaking research of more than 10,000 unsorted bones turned “a long-accepted evolutionary assumption on its head.”  According to the report, “common wisdom has long held that those bones are simply vestigial, slowly withering away like tailbones on humans.”  But their results “[fly] directly in the face of that assumption, finding that not only do those pelvic bones serve a purpose—but their size and possibly shape are influenced by the forces of sexual selection.”  This new analysis of whale hips was published in the scientific journal Evolution. 

ICR’s Brian Thomas provided an excellent synopsis on the whale bone research.  He described the problems with seeing these bones as evolutionary adaptations.  He offered a better explanation of bones designed for a specific purpose. The bones in the lower abdomen in some whales do not connect to other bones but are embedded in several muscles.  Bone provides a firm anchor for other structures that are manipulated by these muscles.  It seems that these bones may be vital for extremely large bodies to mate in a fluid environment.  Similarly, many animals and also humans have a bone called the hyoid in their neck region.  It also is affixed only by muscles above and below it.  The hyoid provides a firm anchor for these muscles to help manipulate the tongue, larynx, and pharynx.  Both the hyoid and whale abdominal bones are a good design solution for the movement of accessory structures.  [End of quotes]

Now back to Scientific American, “Five Things We Know to be True,” and Mr. Shermer’s claim that vestigial structures prove evolution:

A vestigial organ is an evolutionary assumption that certain organs in the human body were once needed but the process of evolution has made these particular organs useless. As late as 1960, textbooks listed over 200 vestigial structures in the human body including the appendix, thyroid, pituitary glands, tonsils and more.

Today''s science has reduced the list of 200 useless vestigial organs to a big fat zero. In spite of this knowledge, many evolutionists have failed to upgrade their unbelief and continue to cling and expound on vestigial organs. It is true that one can continue to live without some of the so-called vestigial organs just like one can continue to live with only one eye or one foot, etc., but the quality of life is much better with all body parts functioning well.

For example, commonly removed organs such as tonsils and the appendix, which were deemed as useless, are now known to have very real value. It''s now known that the appendix is a gland that removes poisons from the body and that the tonsils also remove poisons and secrete needed iodine into the system.

Regarding the concept of vestigial organs and their being a product of lack of use due to the evolutionary cycle, Scott Huse, author of the book, The Collapse of Evolution, had this to say:

The fatal flaw in the argument from vestigial organs is exposed by modern genetics. Basically the concept of vestigial organs represents a return to Lamarckism where the development or loss of a structure is based upon need. It is now known, however, that organs can only be altered by a genetic alteration in the chromosomes, or DNA. The use or disuse of an organ has no effect whatsoever on subsequent generations. [End of quote]

There are no vestigial organs in the human body—every organ with a place—every organ with a purpose.

Now here comes man''s science. The following excerpts are from Yahoo News, published August 24, 2009. The writer is Charles Q. Choi with LiveScience.com.  Keep in mind that Mr. Shermer and a vast array of evolutionist’s literature claim the appendix is a “useless vestigial organ.”

The body's appendix has long been thought of as nothing more than a worthless evolutionary artifact, good for nothing save a potentially lethal case of inflammation.

Now researchers suggest the appendix is a lot more than a useless remnant. Not only was it recently proposed to actually possess a critical function, but scientists now find it appears in nature a lot more often than before thought. And it's possible some of this organ''s ancient uses could be recruited by physicians to help the human body fight disease more effectively.

In a way, the idea that the appendix is an organ whose time has passed has itself become a concept whose time is over.

"Maybe it's time to correct the textbooks," said researcher William Parker, an immunologist at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, N.C. "Many biology texts today still refer to the appendix as a ‘vestigial organ.’” [End of quotes]

Scientific American’s Mr. Shermer writes concerning the theory of evolution:

But in those intervening years, scientists have found so much evidence in support of  the theory that it would be truly astonishing if it turned out not to be true—as shocking as if the germ theory of disease fell apart or if astrophysicists were forced to abandon the big bang model of the universe. [End of quote]

Did God create the earth and its universe in six, literal, 24-hour days just over 6,000 years ago—or did we explode into existence (the Big Bang)  from basically nothing, billions of years ago?  The headline in the September 2014 issue of Acts and Facts, written by Dr. J. Herbert, reads, “Another Big Bang Blunder.” Excerpts follow:

2014 has been a rough year for supporters of the Big Bang model.  In March, the BICEP2 radio astronomy team announced purported direct evidence for inflation, which is an integral part of the Big Bang model.  The media loudly trumpeted this as “smoking gun” evidence for the Big Bang, and some Christians eagerly, but uncritically, accepted the claim. 

Years ago, inflation was tacked on to the original Big Bang model in order to save it from serious difficulties.  Secular cosmologists believed these problems could be solved by postulating that the universe went through a period of inflation—an extremely rapid growth spurt—early in its history.  Over time, inflation theory became increasingly bizarre, leading to the idea of a vast multiverse composed of infinitely many pocket—or “bubble”—universes. 

This alleged “smoking gun” was no exception.  A mere two months after the dramatic announcement, even secular scientists were expressing doubts about the claim.  By early June, the discovery had been discredited by two independent studies.  One prominent theoretical physicist even called it a “Big Bang blunder” and noted that the BICEP2 researchers made their dramatic announcement to the world before their paper had even been peer-reviewed by qualified scientists.  This was a serious breach of scientific ethics and protocol. 

Worse yet, researchers from King’s College London are now claiming that accepting the BICEP2 results as legitimate would imply that the universe should have collapsed back in on itself shortly after the Big Bang, so that our universe should not even exist! [End of quotes]

Man’s “truth” is in a constant state of flux.  The same Scientific American publication that in November 2016 ran its multi-page feature “5 Things We Know to be True” published an eight-page feature in February 2017 with the headline “Pop Goes the Universe,” with the subhead “The latest astrophysical measurements, combined with theoretical problems, cast doubt on the long-cherished inflationary theory of the early cosmos and suggest we need new ideas.”  Remember, inflationary theory is central to the Big Bang.  Several paragraphs from this feature follow:

On March 21, 2013, the European Space Agency held an international press conference to announce new results from a satellite called Planck.  The spacecraft had mapped the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, light emitted more than 13 billion years ago just after the big bang, in better detail than ever before.  The new map, scientists told the audience of journalists, confirms a theory that cosmologists have held dear for 35 years: that the universe began with a bang followed by a brief period of hyper-accelerated expansion known as inflation.  This expansion smoothed the universe to such an extent that, billions of years later, it remains nearly uniform all over space and in every direction and “flat,” as opposed to curved like a sphere, except for tiny variations in the concentration of matter that account for the finely-detailed hierarchy of stars, galaxies, and galaxy clusters around us. 

The principle message of the press conference was that the Planck data perfectly fit the predictions of the simplest inflationary models, reinforcing the impression that the theory is firmly established.  The book on cosmology seemed to be closed, the team suggested. 

Following the announcement, the three of us discussed its ramifications at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.  Ijjas was then a visiting graduate student from Germany; Steinhardt, who had been one of the original architects of inflationary theory three decades ago but whose later work pointed out serious problems with its theoretical foundations, was spending his sabbatical at Harvard; and Loeb was our host as chair of the astronomy department.  We all remarked on the meticulously precise observations of the Planck team.  We disagreed, however, with the interpretation.  If anything, the Planck data disfavored the simplest inflation models and exacerbated long-standing foundational problems with the theory, providing new reasons to consider competing ideas about the origin and evolution of the universe. 

In the years since, more precise data gathered by the Planck satellite and other instruments have made the case only stronger.  Yet even now the cosmology community has not taken a cold, honest look at the big bang inflationary theory or paid significant attention to critics who question whether inflation happened.  Rather cosmologists appear to accept at face value the proponents’ assertion that we must believe the inflationary theory because it offers the only simple explanation of the observed features of the universe.  But, as we will explain, the Planck data, added to theoretical problems, have shaken the foundations of this assertion. 

The data suggests cosmologists should reassess this favored paradigm and consider new ideas about how the universe began. 

The simplest inflationary models, including those described in standard textbooks, are strongly disfavored by observations.  Of course, theorist rapidly rushed to patch the inflationary picture but at the cost of making arcane models.  [End of quotes]

The nature of man’s truth is ever changing and peppered with his opinions; after much speaking, his theories become his truth.  The October 29, 2016 issue of Science News has a feature concerning the proposed Big Bang under the heading “Shock Waves Rocked Baby Universe.”  In this short, eight-paragraph feature, you’ll find three “mays”—as in “maybe”—six “coulds”—as in “could be”—two “theorized,” two “ifs,” one “assumption,” “new wrinkle,” “believe,” and one “unexplained.” 

“Five Things We Know to be True,” Scientific American?  There is one thing the children of faith know to be true and that is: “the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether” (Psalm 19:9).  Those who embrace this Holy Book written thousands of years ago will never be ashamed to say Jesus is the Lord of Glory. 

GOD SAID, Genesis 1:1:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

GOD SAID, Exodus 20:11:

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

MAN SAID: Anyone with a smidgeon of learning knows the universe and earth are billions of years old.  No educated person would embrace creationists and their young-earth foolishness! 

Now you have THE RECORD.

References:

Authorized King James Version

GodSaidManSaid, “‘Things We Know to be True:’ Scientific American Challenges God (Part 1)”

GodSaidManSaid, “‘Things We Know to be True:’ Scientific American Challenges God (Part 2)”

GodSaidManSaid, “‘Things We Know to be True:’ Scientific American Challenges God (Part 3)”

GodSaidManSaid, “‘Things We Know to be True:’ Scientific American Challenges God (Part 4)”

Ijjas, A.; Steinhardt, P.; Loeb, A., “Pop Goes the Universe,” Scientific American, February 2017