moving to a new site

I've moved my blog to www.gospelpreacher238.blogspot.com please follow my blog there!

Dean

A Thought From a Marine

Well today is Memorial Day, and first I'd like to pay homage to those who have sacrificed so much to protect our nation, I'm simply one of those men who was fortunate enough to come home from War.

Its been almost 4 years now since I signed up for the Marine Corps and since that time I've experienced a lot. I've been to boot camp, where I wash pushed to my ultimate limits both physically and mentally, I had sand kicked in my face, another human yelling at me constantly 24/7, and punishment for not paying attention to details. I've been in the back yard of a man who speaks Arabic, who's family is poor, who's son thirst for water and freedom, yet the only thing he's had to drink for the 50 years he's been on this earth is war and the tyranny of one history's most infamous leaders, Saddam H. I've been shot at, I've seen bombs go off, I've heard the sound of thunder whistling out of the barrel's of tanks and howitzers, I've endured the loss of loved one's at home and abroad. I've come home from war to hear the stories of friends being spat on or being called baby killers, I've sat in classrooms were the men who have fought against me were called freedom fighters, I've seen protest signs and patriotic flags, I've been there done that not because I had to but because I wanted to.

Yet, even with the bombs going off or the hecklers heckling, the insults flying none of it can compare to what Jesus must have gone through when he decided to lay down his life, not because he had to but because he wanted to. I would like to say that those experiences could relate a little bit to what Jesus went through those hours before he endure the cross, but to even think it would be a gross miscalculation. Yet, those experience help me realize just how much our savior gave so that the lost could be saved, so those in the dark could see the light, and that those who are dead can have everlasting life.

"And I thank you, thank you, Lord"

The Need for Restoration not Reformation

I recently was reading through a periodical called The Spiritual Sword, the title of the issue was "What Is Happening To Us?" When I looked through the pages I was shocked. The first article dealt with the topic of immersion baptism being apart of salvation, I was amazed at what i found. The highlighted quote was by Gary Holloway from Lipscomb University in which he stated "Currently there is some controversy among Churches of Christ regarding immersion. Many of us cannot deny that there are many devout Christians who are unimmersed." The author would late go on to tell about a sermon given by Mike Williams in 2006 titled "Baptism and Christian Unity," in which he would say that baptism is more or less an unimportant issue. He concluded by stating "And so, we have decided we will not be contentious, and we will be encompassing, and embracing all who choose to come here and walk with us." I was shocked that a Christian University, would say such a thing. Thankfully, the Spiritual Sword did not go on to support any of these ideas but would refute each claim which was made by those who were seeking to reform or change the Church of Christ.

Don't get me wrong I'm all for the idea of allowing people into the church, but not at the cost of violating basic Biblical doctrines such as baptism for the forgiveness of sins. I ended up reading the majority of the Spiritual Sword and realized that the Church which Jesus establish had reached a crossroad. I've realized that there are those who are setting out to reform the church of Christ, attempting to make it more appealing to the popular culture while ignoring scripture. So how can the problem be solved? By restoring the foundational beliefs which the Biblical writers wrote about. Restoration is what is needed, not reformation. Basing doctrinal beliefs on what the culture thinks is exactly why there are so many quarrels within the church today. But if we all take a step back, put presuppositions aside and take the Bible at face value, can the split that is taking place be fixed ?I'm a firm believer it can be, even though there are those who will never adopt N.T. Christianity, but I believe the majority of those in error can be won back.

If this is to happen then the brotherhood cannot simply ignore the change agents within the church, we have to reason and talk with them, not in a militant manner but with love, compassion and the desire to know God's will as the forefront. There is nothing wrong with debating issues in an open forum, if the principles which were mentioned earlier are in use then the Bible will answer the questions of right and wrong and we should not be afraid of that. The church needs restoration not reformation.

IMPACT

Authority of the BIble.

Over the past few days I've had many conversations with a wide variety of people, black, white, baptist, gnostic, atheist, and even brothers within the church. There was one thing which was always the topic...the Bible. With most of my conversations there was a wide variety of topics, from politics, role of Christians serving in the military, instrumental worship and the list could go on. But the one thing I realized was the the constant statements "well I think this means" "or at least that's what I think" and then it hit me....the Bible was being subjected to man's opinion and wasn't being allowed to speak for itself.

For instance I had a conversation with a person who believed that the Bible sets no sexual ethic, therefore gay marriage might be acceptable. Now I do not mean to treat this sin any different than lying, cheating, stealing or murder, it was just the topic. However, through the conversation the proponent of gay marriage suggested that because Jesus never said anything about it ruled out the possibility of it being definitely wrong. Although, the person who supported the previous stated position failed to realize that these position where spoken about in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:10. Surprisingly, the person sidestepped scripture putting it off on the notion of "that's not what it means."

The point I'm trying to make is that the Bible is the authority of God and provides us with everything we need to be fully equipped (2 Tim 3:16). Therefore, because it provides us with everything we need to please God spiritually, we need to take God at his word not what we think or want the Bible to say. The sad part is there are more and more Christians who are allowing the culture to dictate what God's word says and what they believe. Our responsibility to uphold the truth of scripture no matter what culture says or imposes. Because if the Bible can be formed to any doctrine and everything is acceptable how can Christians claim divine truth if someone can make the Bible fit any secular thought or idea? Simply put if the Bible can mean anything then it ultimately means nothing...doesn't it?

Keep The Faith

Impact

Thoughts from the past, lesson for the future

As I sit here at my desk I know that in a few hours our country will pick the next president. I've cast my vote i've prayed my prayers and all I can do is wait. Polls show the man I support is behind and he will probably lose, yet through all which might come, gay marriage, the repeal of partial birth abortion, and a whole host of things that could hinder my rights as a Christian, i'm strangely comfortable with it. Not to say that I support what might come down the legislative pike, but i have this promise. This promise from a man who hung on a cross and died for my sins. In him I have all spiritual blessings, I have no condemnation and I have forgiveness of sins. His name is Jesus Christ. He is the Son of God, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, the Great I Am. It is in him that I have the promise of eternal life if I live by the commandments he has given me. The great thing about this promise is that no natural disaster can shake it's foundation, no war can destroy it, public opinion cant alter it, congress cant abolish it and the president can't veto it. It is this promise which I clinge to when the sun is shining or when the storm clouds roll in. Some say that if Obama is elected Christianity is dead. Well i respectfully disagree. Obama does not change who Christ is, what Christ did, and the promise I have in him. He does not change Jesus Christ. It is through this name that we have the ability to live no just and earthly life but an eternal life, free from saddeness and pain....Jesus Christ....there is just something about that nameRomans 8:31-37

THE EVOLUTION DELUSION: CAN A CHRISTIAN BE AN EVOLUTIONIST?

Whether it be in textbooks, classrooms, or just casual conversation between friends and family, evolution is largely assumed to be true. Sadly, the supposed evidences behind the theory are skewed, inaccurate, systematically chosen and forced from the field of research into text book creating the delusion of fact. The evidences which do not support the theory are tossed out and passed off as religiously motivated. Yet, the evolution delusion has seeped through the walls of the Church to a point where preacher, elders, deacons, and brethren are trying to compromise God’s word. Is there any evidence in the Bible which shows that evolution cannot be acceptable? Here, then, are a couple of reason why there cannot be a compatible compromise between God’s word and evolution.
The most important reason why evolution cannot be compatible with the Bible is the source of creation. Darwinian evolution claims all species had a common ancestor which, with time, gradual change, natural selection, and random mutation, formed different species. The guiding force behind the evolutionary process is not God, but simply mother nature herself. On the contrary, the Bible suggest in Genesis 1:1 “God created the heavens and the earth.” Obviously, God cannot be the guiding force behind an unguided process, like evolution. If evolution is true, then by default there is no God, but if there is a God then Darwinian evolution cannot exist.
The second reason why evolution cannot exist scripturally is simply due to the evidence we can observe in the world, with the evidence given in God’s divine word. Evolutionist, suggest that species can evolve into different species. For instance apes into man, or dinosaurs into birds. However, the Bible says in Genesis 1:21 “God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind,” Further more in Genesis 1:24-25 God said “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind…God made the beast of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.”
To this day we can observe dogs making dogs, cats making cats, yet we have no evidence of dogs making sharks.
Therefore, scripturally speaking there is no evidence for the theory of evolution to harmonize with God’s divine word. When all the evidence is gathered, studied and properly analyzed the case for evolution is nothing more than a simple delusion.

Dinosaurs...how old were they again?

In text books, college classrooms, or just casual talk between friends and family it is often assumed that Dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago (I just love how they come up with round numbers...every time). But recent findings have led some to believe that the age of Dinosaurs could be substantially younger then what has long been taught as a dogmatic truth.

In October of 2006 Dr. Mary Schweitzer, assistant professor of paleontology at the N.C. Museum of Natural Sciences, managed to isolate soft tissue from the femur of a supposed 65 million year old Tyrannosaur Rex. However just examining a T-Rex bone was nothing compared to what would follow next. (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-03/ncsu-nss032405.php)
As Dr. Schweitzer went to study the components of the bone itself, she extracted soft tissue, which was still in tact. While scientific estimations suggest that organic molecules in fossils do not preserve past 100,000 years, somehow, some way, this T-Rex fossil still has soft tissue, and when placed under a microscope blood vessel were still in tact, and contents could still be squeezed out of them.(www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/,http://thefirstsixdays.com/EvidenceofMenandDinosaursArticles.htm).

So hooow old are these fossils suppose to be? for the longest time many scientist assumed 65 million years old, now due to this scientific breakthrough, the aging of dinosaurs should be re-examined by the scientific community. The question is, will it? With Dr. Schweitzer's discovery, a long standing hypothesis faces its greatest challenge yet.......Evolution or Creation?

Evolution or Creation?

This past week many in the scientific community celebrated "Darwin Day" in rememberance of Charles Darwin's birthday. Darwin revolutionized the way modern science worked, suggesting that all life came from one ancestor and changed through a step by step process over millions of years, accompanied by random variation and natural selection. Since then the debate has raged on as his theory known as evolution remains highly challenged by those who suggest that the earth was intelligently created. Two opposing views, science will disprove one, so the question is, Was Darwin wrong?

Most of those who support the darwinian theory point to "missing links" In the following article Dr. Brad Harrub of Focus Press, address one of those missing links and the true nature of the animal known as Archaeopteryx. (this article was orginially posted at from www.apologeticspress.com/article/3113).

Article by Brad Harrub

One of the “proofs” routinely given for the theory of organic evolution is the supposition that birds allegedly evolved from dinosaurs. Textbooks frequently tout the fossilized remains of a creature known as Archaeopteryx as proof that evolution is a “fact.” To understand just how vital this creature is to evolutionary theory, all one must do is survey how frequently it is featured in general biology textbooks. Archaeopteryx has become an icon to which evolutionists vehemently cling, as they continue to indoctrinate students with the notion that all living creatures arose from a common ancestor. The theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs originated with the late John Ostrom, who once served as a professor at Yale University as well as Curator Emeritus of Vertebrate Paleontology at the Peabody Museum of Natural History (see Ostrom, 1970, 1974, 1975, 1976). Thanks in part to his dogged determination, as well as the militant efforts of neo-Darwinians, Ostrom’s conjecture now stands as a prominent pillar supporting evolutionary theory.
The irony is that there are no alternative “ancestors” that would explain the evolutionary existence of birds. Dinosaurs are the only candidates that can offer any answers as to how birds came into existence. Thus, evolutionists are forced to defend this “transitional fossil,” no matter how tenuous the evidence. This necessity explains why evolutionists are so dogmatic about this material remaining in textbooks—they want to ensure all students are familiar with Archaeopteryx.
Last year, the journal Science reported the discovery of the tenth Archaeopteryx specimen (see Mayr, et al., 2005). Gerald Mayr and his colleagues observed: “Here we describe a 10th skeletal specimen of an archaeopterygid. The specimen was discovered in an unknown locality of the Solnhofen area and was housed in a private collection before it was recently acquired by the Wyoming Dinosaur Center, Thermopolis, USA” (2005, 310:1483, emp. added). [One wonders if this “unknown locality” was the same Chinese farmhouse that witnessed the “evolution” of the alleged Archaeoraptor—a creature later determined to be a forged composite, consisting of fossilized remains from both a bird and a dinosaur.] This latest Archaeopteryx discovery has stimulated once again a great deal of controversy—as many scientists question the validity of the find, and others question whether Archaeopteryx is even a link at all.
While many evolutionists have hailed Archaeopteryx as a vital transitional fossil, few readily admit the peculiar circumstances that frequently accompany Archaeopteryx discoveries. For instance, Reinhold Leinfelder, director of the General Museum of Natural History in Humboldt-University noted:
It seems that Archaeopteryx findings have always been accompanied by mysterious circumstances. The first complete specimen discovered in Bavaria in 1861 was sold by its anonymous finder to a wealthy buyer, kept secret, and eventually sold to the Natural History Museum in London. The tenth, and most recent, specimen is no exception. Also found in Bavaria, by an unknown person (allegedly in the 1970s), it was sold to an unknown third party in Switzerland, ending up in a small private museum in Thermopolis, Wyoming, USA (2006, 312:197, emp. added).
Given the importance archaeologists place on the location and surrounding strata for fossilized finds, one wonders how this “important” discovery just conveniently showed up. One also wonders why this tenth specimen has not received greater scrutiny from the scientific community. Could it be that because this is a vital “link” in the evolutionary theory, that it has been given a free-pass?
The controversy over the legitimacy of Archaeopteryx does not stop with how it has been found. The feathers themselves also have been the center of a great deal of controversy. Prior to this latest discovery, the only specimens that showed any feather impressions were the two fossils that were sold to museums by the Haberlein family. In 1861, Karl Haberlein sold his fossil to the British Museum, and sixteen years later his son Ernst sold the second one to the Berlin Museum. Some scientists maintain that these alleged feathered fossils are nothing more than a small dinosaur on which someone artificially placed feather imprints on. In speaking of Archaeopteryx in 1975, John Ostrom wrote:
...these specimens are not particularly like modern birds at all. If feather impressions had not been preserved in the London and Berlin specimens, they [the other specimens—BH] never would have been identified as birds. Instead, they would unquestionably have been labeled as coelurosaurian dinosaurs [such as Compsognathus—BH]. Notice that the last three specimens to be recognized were all misidentified at first, and the Eichstatt specimen for 20 years was thought to be a small specimen of the dinosaur Compsognathus (3:61).
While scores of evolutionists continue to promote Archaeopteryx as a “factual” missing link, some scientists believe the facts do not support the propaganda. Ann Gibbons noted:
The new findings haven’t swayed Feduccia or University of Kansas paleontologist Larry Martin, another skeptic of the bird-dinosaur link. Says Feduccia: “It’s biophysically impossible to evolve flight from such large bipeds with foreshortened forelimbs and heavy, balancing tails”—exactly the wrong anatomy for flight. And as for the suite of other strange-looking characters that link dinosaurs and birds, Martin says that they could have been inherited from an ancient reptilian ancestor that gave rise to both dinosaurs and birds. “In my opinion, the theropod origin of birds will be the greatest embarrassment of paleontology in the 20th century,” says Feduccia (1996, 274:721, emp. added).
This bold declaration has not slowed speculation as to the role Archaeopteryx plays in the origin of flight and modern birds. Recently, doctoral student Nick Longrich from the University of Calgary suggested that not only could Archaeopteryx fly, but that this creature used four limbs to accomplish the feat! (see Than, 2006). Ker Than reported: “The earliest known bird had flight feathers on its legs that allowed it to use its hindlimbs as an extra pair of wings, a new study finds” (2006). The MSNBC news report concluded:
Longrich speculates that the hindlimb feathers might have served other roles in addition to flight. Like modern pigeons, kittiwakes and vultures, Archaeopteryx’s hindlimb feathers might have acted as airbrakes, or perhaps stabilizers, control surfaces or flaps, Longrich writes. Scientists don’t know when in their evolutionary history birds switched from a “four winged” design to a two-wing one, but it’s thought that hindlimb wings were sacrificed in order to free up legs for other functions, such as running, swimming and catching prey. “The idea that a multi-winged Archaeopteryx has been around for more than a century, but it has received little attention,” Longrich said. “I believe one reason for this is that people tend to see what they want or expect to see. Everybody knows that birds don’t have four wings, so we overlooked them even when they were right under our noses” (Than, 2006).
So let’s get this straight. We are not sure whether Archaeopteryx’s feathers are real. We are not sure if this creature could actually fly. We don’t know if it used two wings or four limbs. We don’t know the location or how the fossils were procured. But we are absolutely sure it is the missing link between dinosaurs and birds. That sounds reasonable. While Longrich’s theory may help those who are desperately trying to get Archaeopteryx off the ground, consider the real conundrum in which evolutionists find themselves when it comes to flight. They must explain the origin of flight not only in birds, but also in insects, mammals (bats), and reptiles (pterodactyls). The four-limbed theory offers little solution to the overall problem of how four different types of creatures each independently evolved the ability to fly.
With so many challenges facing this crucial link, it is no surprise that evolutionists have turned to other fossilized remains in support of their dinosaur-to-bird theory. For instance, recent discoveries from China have breathed new life into this debate. Creatures such as Confuciusornis, Sinosauropteryx, Caudipteryx, and the newly discovered Psittacosaurus have been described as possessing “protofeathers.” However, ornithologist Alan Feduccia does not believe the data support the theory of feathered dinosaurs. In a recent press release from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, David Williamson commented on Feduccia’s current research. Williamson noted:
No good evidence exists that fossilized structures found in China and which some paleontologists claim are the earliest known rudimentary feathers were really feathers at all, a renowned ornithologist says. Instead, the fossilized patterns appear to be bits of decomposed skin and supporting tissues that just happen to resemble feathers to a modest degree” (2005, emp. added).
Williamson went on to quote Feduccia, who noted, “But to say dinosaurs were the ancestors of the modern birds we see flying around outside today because we would like them to be is a big mistake” (2005, emp. added). Mistake indeed!
This bold statement comes after Feduccia’s research team completed a study in which they proved these alleged “protofeathers” were nothing more than collagen. Williamson observed:
Using powerful microscopes, the team examined the skin of modern reptiles, the effects of decomposition on skin and the fossil evidence relating to alleged feather progenitors, also known as “protofeathers.” They found that fossilized patterns that resemble feathers somewhat also occur in fossils known not to be closely related to birds and hence are far more likely to be skin-related tissues, Feduccia said. Much of the confusion arose from the fact that in China in the same area, two sets of fossils were found. Some of these had true feathers and were indeed birds known as “microraptors,” while others did not and should not be considered birds at all. “Collagen is a scleroprotein, the chief structural protein of the connective tissue layer of skin,” he said. “Naturally, because of its low solubility in water and its organization as tough, inelastic fiber networks, we would expect it to be preserved occasionally from flayed skin during the fossilization process” (2005, emp. added).
Alan Feduccia and his colleagues published a 41-page research study in the Journal of Morphology. In the original report they noted:
Our findings show no evidence for the existence of protofeathers and consequently no evidence in support of the follicular theory of the morphogenesis of the feather. Rather, based on histological studies of the integument of modern reptiles, which show complex patterns of the collagen fibers of the dermis, we conclude that “protofeathers” are probably the remains of collagenous fiber “meshworks” that reinforced the dinosaur integument. These “meshworks” of the skin frequently formed aberrant patterns resembling feathers as a consequence of decomposition. Our findings also draw support from new paleontological evidence. We describe integumental structures, very similar to “protofeathers,” preserved within the rib area of a Psittacosaurus specimen from Nanjing, China, an ornithopod dinosaur unconnected with the ancestry of birds. These integumental structures show a strong resemblance to the collagenous fiber systems in the dermis of many animals (2005, 266:125, emp. added).
In personal communication with Feduccia, he explained: “What we are referring to are the supposed finds of protofeathers, which we can show definitively are collagen fiber bundles and have nothing to do with feathers. There are true feathers (which are on birds, not feathered dinosaurs) and the so-called protofeathers, which are collagen” (2006, parenthetical item in original). In exposing where this propaganda originated, Feduccia speculated the hype began in 1996. As Williamson reported:
Although a few artists depicted feathered dinosaurs as far back as the 1970s, Feduccia said the strongest case for feathered dinosaurs arose in 1996 with a small black and white photo of the early Cretaceous period small dinosaur Sinosauropteryx, which sported a coat of filamentous structures some called “dino-fuzz.” “The photo subsequently appeared in various prominent publications as the long-sought ‘definitive’ evidence of dinosaur ‘feathers’ and that birds were descended from dinosaurs,” he said. “Yet no one ever bothered to provide evidence—either structural or biological—that these structures had anything to do with feathers.In our new work, we show that these and other filamentous structures were not protofeathers, but rather the remains of collagenous fiber meshworks that reinforced the skin” (2005, emp. added).
Feduccia, an evolutionist, and his colleagues do not stop by simply dismissing the alleged “protofeathers.” They also admit there are lots of “obstacles” that remain for the alleged dinosaur-to-bird theory:
It would not tax the imagination to engender a long list of obstacles for the now dominant model of a theropod origin of birds, including, but not limited to: the fact that early theropods (e.g., Triassic Herrerasaurus) are highly specialized obligate bipeds (with arms reduced to 1/2 the length of the hindlimbs); the fact that the stratigraphic sequence of bird-like theropods has been almost the reversal of the expected evolutionary sequence leading to birds; the fact that the earliest described “feathered dinosaur” is the unbird-like compsognathid Sinosauropteryx, devoid of any preserved structures that can be shown to be feather-like; the fact that any downy-like integumentary covering in a terrestrial theropod would be maladaptive; the fact that flight feathers arranged precisely on the hand as in modern birds are present in microraptors and the basal oviraptosaur Caudipteryx; the fact that many of the derived characters or synapomorphies linking birds and theropods are in question, including notably but not limited to: the sliding lower jaw joint of theropods (absent in birds), the theropod ascending process of the astragalus (distinctive from the avian pretibial bone), and the digital mismatch (1,2,3 theropod vs. 2,3,4 bird hand), etc., to mention a few (Feduccia, et al., 2005, 266:126, emp. added).
Indeed, there are many scientific facts that must be overcome for one to accept the dinosaur-to-bird theory. Given that Archaeopteryx is now a mainstay in biology textbooks, one wonders how data surrounded by so much controversy (and full of so many holes), could possibly be passed off as “factual” to college students. Maybe it has something to do with the evolutionary theory’s inability to explain adequately the origin of birds and flight. Undoubtedly, Archaeopteryx will continue to be proclaimed as a “missing link,” as it is the only possible solution to the nagging question from whence birds evolved.
However, in personal communication with Feduccia, he declared: “Archaeopteryx was clearly a well developed bird, with true feathers” (2006). Years earlier Feduccia proclaimed: “Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that” (as quoted in Morell, 1993, 259:764). Nevertheless, speculations will continue and the mainstream media will persist in labeling the Archaeopteryx as an evolutionary missing link. Your children and grandchildren will continue to be exposed to this fallacious claim through clever marketing schemes. Why? Because nature abhors a vacuum, and until evolutionists have a replacement for Archaeopteryx they will continue to defend their shaky house of cards.

REFERENCES
Feduccia, Alan (2006), Personal Communication to Brad Harrub, October 4.
Feduccia, Alan, Theagarten Lingham-Soliar, and J. Richard Hinchliffe (2005), “Do Feathered Dinosaurs Exist? Testing the Hypothesis on Neontological and Paleontological Evidence,” Journal of Morphology, 266:125-166, October.
Gibbons, Ann (1996), “New Feathered Fossil Brings Dinosaurs and Birds Closer,” Science, 274:720-721, November 1.
Leinfelder, Reinhold (2006), “Archaeopteryx: The Lost Evidence,” Science, 312:197-198, April 14.
Mayr, Gerald, Burkhard Pohl, and D. Stefan Peters (2005), “A Well-Preserved Archaeopteryx Specimen with Theropod Features,” Science, 310:1483-1486, December 2.
Morell, Virginia (1993), “Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms,” Science, 259:764-765, February 5.
Ostrom, John H. (1970), “Archaeopteryx: Notice of a ‘New’ Specimen,” Science, 170:537-538, October 30.
Ostrom, John H. (1974), Archaeopteryx and the Origin of Flight, Quarterly Review of Biology, 49:27-47.
Ostrom, John H. (1975), “The Origin of Birds,” Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 3:55-61.
Ostrom, John H. (1976), “Archaeopteryx and the Origin of Birds,” Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 8[2]:91-182, June.
Than, Ker (2006), “Study: Ancient Bird Used Four Wings to Fly,” MSNBC, September 22, [On-line], URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14961446/.
Williamson, David (2005), “Latest Study: Scientists Say No Evidence Exists that Therapod Dinosaurs Evolved into Birds,” University of North Carolina News Service, [On-line], URL: http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/oct05/feducci100705.htm.

Chance or Creator? Part 1

Over the last one-hundred years there has been a great debate about how life came into existence. Was it by random change with variation over time through natural selection? Or was life created by a higher intelligence? This debate has touched everyone from scientist, politicians, preachers, atheists, and school teachers. Over the next several week I will be posting and discussing this great subject.

Throughout our culture there has been a great divide between those who believe in evolution and those who believe in a higher intelligence which created the world. It is impossible to ask either side to approach the debate by setting aside their worldviews completely. However, both sides have to realize that the courts, media, and congress will not settle the issue, the evidence will. There is only one correct answer. My hope is that each of us takes time to examine our worldviews and entertain that there might be a chance of it being incorrect. Thank you for your time and I look forward for the next couple of weeks! LET OUR JOURNEY BEGIN!!!!

How far are you willing to go?

Last night at church, one of our elders, Mark Hanstein gave the 90 seconds of power. It moved me and shook my inner foundation. It helped me better understand the role each and every Christian plays in the overall role of Christ's church. Here, then is the illustration Mr. Hanstein presented.

In his first inaugural address, President Ronald Reagan spoke of Martin Treptow who was killed in battle during World War I, while trying to carry a message between battalions under heavy artillery fire. On his body was found a diary. On the flyleaf, under the heading, My Pledge, Treptow had written these words: "America must win this war. Therefore, I will work, I will save, I will sacrifice, I will endure,
I will fight cheerfully and do my utmost, as if the issue of the whole struggle
depended on me alone."

Christians have to recognize that it is our responsibility to combat Satan at every corner, not with violent speech or anger. We cannot hate, must not be silent, and cannot compromise the truth for popularity points. Our duty is to treat the entire matter of saving the lost as if it all depended on each of us individually and as a body. So will you fight, will you work, will you sacrifice, or will you simply sit on the sidelines?

Keep The Faith

wandering alone...

A friend of mine sent me this poem during a time when I was experiencing spiritual distress. I did not know where I was headed, if I even wanted to continue ministry.

"Desert roads winding through my mind

Sitting among you, I wonder, I wander alone through canyons of whispering voices, the questions, my soul's haunting" What do they feel?"

"Is our faith real?"

Sitting in this room brings these thoughts plaguing, screaming "Why are we here?" "Where are the tears? "So long we've been shackled by shadow fears...unable to hear the great calling the Voice of waters and fire healing,revealing, consuming

Do we dare draw near? What is your pain? Expose blistering sands of weathered souls sifting through hands, now we're old. Do you believe in desert rain?"

The author would later go on to clarify that there was a lie based on perspective. The author noticed that we do not wander alone through the canyons but that God is with us every step of the way whether we realize it or not. At the time of my spiritual distress, I realized something very valuable, I was focusing too much on me. The one thing I was not focused on was my relationship with God.

In Proverbs 3:5 it says "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding." In times of distress or crisis, we should rely on God to guide us through the of the turbulence of life. God never promised a smooth sailing just a safe landing. He does however, provide a way out!

If we draw near to God he will draw near to us. Once we put our needs, wants and own understandings behind and lean on the cornerstone, Christ, we can breathe easier. Practicing the presents of God everyday gives us the assurance of knowing our creator is always present and with us every step in our journey known as life.

Are you wandering alone?

The Foundation of Hope

In the recent Presidential election, President Obama ran on two platforms. The first was the idea of change, that Washington was too corrupt, old school, and needed reform. Yet, the driving force behind the change was the hope of a better tomorrow. Isn't in interesting how powerful hope can be? It is intangible, it does not have eyes, ears, a mouth or nose. We cannot look hope in the eye, nor can we see it face to face. Yet somehow, someway, it penetrates our soul to the point of action. Just like any building that is constructed, car that is assembled, or company which is started, hope has a foundation. The question is, what should a Christian's hope be founded on?

There are some who build their hope on the foundation of material items. In a country that is driven by the accumulation of "stuff" it is hard to pull away from the mentality of needing the biggest, most innovative, expensive or technologically advanced items which hit stores every day. Sadly, there is an ideology which suggest whoever dies with the most toys wins. We tend to forget, whoever dies with the most toys is still dead. In Psalms 115:4-8 it says,

"Their idols are silver and gold, the work of man's hands. They have mouths
but they cannot speak; they have eyes, but the cannot see; they have ears
but the cannot hear; they have noses, but they cannot smell; they have
hands, but they cannot feel; they have feet, but they cannot walk; they
cannot make a sound with their throat, those who make them will become like
them, everyone who trust in them."

When we allow materialism to become our main desire, If we place our hope in the material world, we will not be able to see God working in our lives, hear what God is speaking to us through his word, and we will be unable to walk in the way he has commanded. However, we know that placing our hope in the physical is no different than the wise man building his house on the sand because this world and all its lust are passing away (1 John 2:17). Therefore, those who build their hope on materialism strive to gain more because their souls are empty. Thus their hope has no foundation.

Secondly, there are those that build their hope on the foundation of man's wisdom. So many Christians turn to magazines, talks show, such as Oprah and Dr. Phil, or even elected officials in order to satisfy their personal or spiritual desires. In Romans 1:21-22 Paul writes,

"For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks,
but they became futile in their speculation, and their foolish heart was
darkened. Professing to be wise they became fools."

Hope in the man's wisdom leads to the elimination of God and ultimate failure. Hope in men will return empty because men are fallible.

Our hope as Christians should be build on the word of God. God's word is able to equip us (2 Timothy 3:16). God's word guides us (Psalm 119:105). Our creator's word is living and active (Hebrews 4:12). Our hope for everlasting life is based on the accounts God has given us through the revelation of his word. By studying these accounts and lessons our faith in God and the hope that he has promised, will be strengthened.

A Christian's hope should be built on prayer as well. In Philippians 4:6 it says, "be anxious in nothing but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your request be made known to God." Prayer allows Christians to have a direct connection to God. Our hope in our faith is strengthened when our prayers are answered. Answered prayers generate motivation to keep on running the race to eternity.

Finally, a Christian's hope is build on the foundation of Jesus and his sacrifice. For he is the cornerstone of our hope and salvation(Acts 4:11-12). It is because of his sacrifice by which we are enabled to inherit salvation and escape from sin. It is only through Jesus that one can be forgiven of sins, through repentance and baptism in his name (Acts 2:38). When Jesus is apart of our lives we know that our hope is not empty but built on the strongest foundation known to man. The question still remains... What is your hope built on?

Its Predestination Kyle.....Is Predestination a sound doctrine?

In the realm of Christianity there are many who believe God hand selected those who would be saved and those who would ultimately go to hell. The followers of this belief system suggest that because mankind is in such a depraved state we cannot pick or choose for ourselves to follow and obey God, primarily because we have inherited Adam's sin from the garden of Eden. Therefore, since mankind cannot choose to follow God, God made the choice for us by selecting who would be saved and who would be go to hell before we ever committed and act of right or wrong. this doctrine is called the predestination. The premise of predestination ultimately leads to two questions that must be answered, What are the ramifications if predestination is true and does the Bible truly teach this?

The foundation of predestination was first established by John Calvin over five centuries ago, since then Calvinism has held a foothold within the denominational world of religious teaching. Predestination is the doctrine that suggests God hand picked, before our creation, who was going to be saved and who was going to go to hell. Ultimately, we do not have a choice in the matter of our own salvation because we are such a depraved being. The Logical question is, Does the Bible teach this doctrine?

One of the most used passages by those who believe in the doctrine of predestination is Ephesians 1:3-14. Most Calvinist cite Ephesians 1:4, "Just as He Chose us in Him before the foundation of the world," Apparently this passage screams predestination, however Paul effectively lists the attributes which God chose before the foundation of the world "that we would be holy and blameless before Him." Did God select us to be saved before we were born or is did God select that attributes that he desired for us to have as those who follow him? In verse five it says, "He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself," Paul is not stressing that God predestined our fate, but God did predetermine that those who would be holy and choose Christ would be adopted as son.

A prime example would be prospective parents who are seeking to adopt a child. The parents predetermine what characteristics the child should have, as well the adoption agency predetermines the characteristics the parents should have. The prospective parents can talk to the adoption agency and discuss,learn and meet the criteria set out by the adoption agency. If the child is older he or she knows that good behavior is a great characteristic, the adoption agency then attempts to teach the child how to act in a proper manner. In the same way we become adopted sons and daughters of God when we meet the predetermined criteria of salvation that God has set before us, which is completely fulfilled through Jesus' teaching and sacrifice for our sins.

Another primary passage used by those who support the doctrine of predestination is Romans 29-30, which states "For those whom he Foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son," this simply means that God did know all of us before we were born, (to say otherwise would suggest that God is not God) and that he predetermined for us, pre-desired for us all to be come like his Son Jesus, holy and blameless. Do parents desire the same thing from there kids before they are brought into the world? Do parents not desire for their kids to be polite to everyone they encounter? In verse 30 it says "and these who he predestined, He called, He also justified; and these whom he Justified, he also glorified." Does God not call us through the preaching of the Gospel? Is it not the Gospel that saves people? Does faith not come from hearing the words of God?(Romans 10:17). Justification and glorification comes from God when we respond to the gospel of Christ. Moreover, If your fate and my fate has already been decided by God why should we worship? Why should we study our Bible? Why pray to God? Does this not open the door way for us to live any way we pleased based on the fact that no matter what we do our fate has already been decided? A bigger question is how do those who follow the doctrine of predestination is, how do they know if they are saved? What about their children? Theoretically, they and their children could not be saved and there is nothing which can be done to improve their spiritual state? Is that the God of the Bible? Certainly not.

It is clear that scripture does not teach predestination. In fact the Bible teaches that salvation is for everyone not those that are some specific "salvation club." God desires that ALL men be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth(1 Timothy 2:4). God desires that all men come to repentance (1 Peter 3:9). God sent his son for the entire world (John 3:16). God desires that we all repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of our sins and that this promise is for everyone (Acts 2:38-39).

Therefore, the doctrine of predstination does not hold up under the microscope of the Bible. Which means, everyone is accountable to God for the choices and acts they committ throughout life, this includes choosing to accept Jesus as Lord or to deny him. Predestination ultimately limits the power of the Gospel to a certain group of men and women under the notion of divine pre-existing selection. The call is to all, the question is will you obey?

Is homosexuality a sin?

Since Barack Obama's election victory there have been many prominent leaders of the gay community speaking out against his selection of Rick Warren (who is the preacher of the nations biggest church, which is located in Sattleback, California) to give his invocation speech during his inauguration, which takes place on January 22. (for a prime story go to http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/17/obama.warren/index.html?iref=newssearch)

Well what does this have to do with the Christ's Church? There is a movement among those with in the body of Christ as well as denominations that are adamant that a homosexual marriage is scriptural and that there is nothing wrong with this lifestyle because "science" has proven that humans can be "born gay." This begs the question what does God's written word day about the matter and is there any outside evidence that proves humans are not born gay?


One of the primary argument made by those in the Church that support the homosexual lifestlye and marriage is the proposition that Jesus never said anything about gay marriage. However the Bible clearly depicts Jesus speaking about the institution of marriage. In Mathew 19:3 Jesus is approached by the Pharisees and they asked him"Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?" Jesus responded by saying "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female...For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." (Matthew 19:14-5). (If we do a little bit of Biblical digging, we find that Jesus is quoting Genesis 2:24). Jesus then said in verse six, "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." Clearly, Jesus had every opportunity to suggest that a homosexual marriage was approved by God. However, the only marriage that Jesus refers to as being valid in the sight of God is the one between a man in a woman by which they become "one flesh." By re-enforcing the institution of marriage as being between a man and a women, Jesus has automatically eliminated any other form of marriage that man might call "scriptural."

Secondly, the apostle Paul (who was called by Jesus, Acts 9,22) notates in his letter to the Corinthian church about those who will not inherit eternal life He writes "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God"(1 Corinthians 6:9-10). Paul specifically list acts of the heart that will lead a person to hell. We can clearly see that a homosexual lifestyle is listed with in the context of the passage.

Thirdly, Paul makes a second reference to the homosexual lifestyle in his letter to Timothy. In 1 Timothy 1:8-11, Paul expressed to Timothy the reason for the gospel by writing "But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which i have been entrusted." From Paul's letter to Timothy we can understand that it is because of these acts listed are the reason for the gospel being preached to the world, so that the sinner might be able have salvation. Clearly stated in the context of the passage homosexuality is listed as a sin.

Biblical evidence clearly shows that homosexuality is an act of sin. Therefore, if homosexuality is a sin, what then does that make a homosexual marriage? The simple answer would be unscriptural considering the only marriage Jesus mentioned as being "brought together by God" is a marriage between a man and a women. Simply put, Biblically homosexuality and homosexual marriage does not fit the bill.

There is still one question that remains? Is there scientific proof that people are born homosexual? In August 2004 Brad Harrub, who holds a PhD. in in Anatomy and Neurobiology from the University of Tennessee (www.focuspress.org/brad and David Miller who attended Southern Illinois University where he earned his PhD. in speech communication (www.apologeticspress.org/staff/dm), published their findings about homosexuality.

Dr. Harrub and Miller found that

"In the 2000 census sheds even more light on the subject. The overall
statistics from the 2000 Census Bureau revealed:
The total population of
the U.S. is 285,230,516. The total number of households in the U.S. is
106,741,426.
The total number of unmarried same-sex households is
601,209.
Thus, out of a population of 106,741,426 households, homosexuals
represent 0.42% of those households. That is less than one half of one
percent! But since most people are not mathematicians, we would like to make
this
point in a way that most individuals will be able to better comprehend.
If we were to start a new television sitcom, and wanted to accurately portray
homosexual ratios in society, we would need 199 heterosexual actors before we
finally introduced one homosexual actor" (www.apologeticspress.org/article/2553).

However one of the most cited studies used in support of homosexuality is the famous LeVay Study, which was conducted in 1991. Dr. Simon LeVay studied the brain differences between the homosexual and heterosexual male and came to the determination that brain matter in a homosexual male is the same as that same brain matter of women. (for more specific details go to www.apologeticspress.org/article/2553).

yet there are a series of problems with the study. Dr. Harrub and Miller
found that

"When looking at the methodology of the LeVay study, one of the key problems
is that the study has never been reproduced. As William Byne noted, LeVay’s
work has not been replicated, and human neuroanatomical studies of this
kind have a very poor track record for reproducibility. Indeed, procedures similar to those LeVay used to identify nuclei have previously led researchers astray (1994,27[5]:53, emp. added).Additionally, of nineteen homosexual subjects used in the study,all had died of complications of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). AIDS has been shown to decrease testosterone levels, so it should be expected that those who suffered from that condition would have smaller INAH.

Furthermore, in a scientific environment where controls and standards are a necessity, LeVay did not possess a complete medical history of the individuals included in his study. He therefore was forced to assume the sexual orientation of the non-AIDS victims as being heterosexual, when some may not have been. In addition, bear in mind that he had no evidence regarding the sexual orientation of the women whose brains he examined. LeVay has admitted:
It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain (as quoted in Byrd, et al., 2001, emp. added).."(www.apologeticspress.org/article/2553).

These are Just a few of the finding that Dr. Harrub and Miller found throughout their study of homosexuality with the population of America. For a more information go to www. apologeticspress.org/article/2553). These finds ultimately show that Homosexuality is clearly not passed down through hereditary means. Simply put there is no Gay Gene. Even without these findings, common logic would suggest that it would be impossible for there to be "born" gay people. The reason for this is the make up of our society. From the study Dr. Harrub and Miller produce we find that %96 of the population is Heterosexual and that %4 claim to be gay. However, since homosexual couples cannot reproduce, that leave the production of the gay community to heterosexual people. So in order for there to be a gay population at all heterosexual people have to produce them? This does not make sense.

However, there is hope for those that find themselves wanting to be followers of Christ. In Acts 2:38 after receiving Peter's sermon there were those who were pierced to the heart and they wanted to know how they could be saved and Peter replied "Repent and be baptized each of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sin." There is hope for those that desire to follow Christ, that by obeying the gospel and giving up the homosexual lifestyle they too may become one with Christ.

Perseverance

Perseverance

I’ve always enjoyed watching young adults join the body of Christ. Most of the time seeing young adults commit themselves to Christ brings me to tears. I often feel like a kid in a candy shop. Yet, what saddens me is when young adults fall away from the church because of hardship and tribulation. The probable cause for them leaving the faith is the inability to persevere.
Paul after giving a sermon in Lystra is stoned and thrown out of the city. Yet unafraid of the consequence Paul re-enters the city and encourages the disciples saying “through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.” (Acts 14:19-22). Peter writes “Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal among you, which comes upon you for your testing, as though some strange thing were happening” ( Peter 4:12). Christians should not expect the road of life to be smooth, if anything as Christians, life often become more difficult because we are called to live to a higher standard than the rest of the world. God never promised smooth sailing, but he did promise a safe landing but only if we are able to persevere. Jesus said to his apostles in Matthew 10:23 that “You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved.” Is there ever an account of Jesus telling the apostles or disciples that life would be easy if they were to follow him? Then how can we expect something different?

As odd as it may seem perseverance helps faith. In James 1:2-3 it says “Consider it pure joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance.” WHAT!!! YOU MEAN THAT IT IS A GOOD THING TO GO THROUGH DIFFICULT TIMES? Yes! Why? Because it is in trials that we understand that we alone cannot survive but need a greater force to lean on and that force is God. A prime example would be my experience back home on break from school this past week. I was invited to hang out with my friends from high school. We met at my buddies house and we all had the intent of sleeping at his house. Throughout the course of the night there were several cases of alcohol which were being passed around. Ultimately, I knew the dreaded question would come and sure enough my buddy came up to me and said “Hey Dean have a beer.” I rejected the offer, yet he persisted and in that moment I thought “God please get me through this.” I hung in there and resisted the temptation to become drunk, with 1 Corinthians 10:13 stuck in my mind. From that experience my ability to turn away temptation and rely on God grew. I believe this lesson can be applied during times of great distress in which if we persevere, our relationship with God will grow even more intimate.

Finally, when I think about the ability to persevere, I can only think of Jesus. Just imagine how much Jesus persevered, the betrayal by his disciple Judas in the garden of Gethsemane (Luke 22:48), his best friend, Peter denying him three times (Luke 22:56-60), a mock trial (Mark 14:55-59) and ultimately the cross (John 19:16-19), so that we could be forgiven of our sins through his sacrifice. If Jesus did all of that for us, what should be our breaking point? Should there even be a breaking point with regard to our faith in Jesus as Lord? Let me encourage not just young adults but everyone to keep the faith and persevere.