FSTDT

(Note: This is only the first half of the article)

Ever notice how evolutionists will manipulate reality to try and do away with creationism? For example, when you ask an evolutionist how they come up with the age of the sedimentary layers in the earth, they will always tell you they date them by the fossils found in those sedimentary layers. Then when you ask them how they come up with the age of the fossils, they say their age is determined by which sedimentary layer of rock they’re found in. But how can that be? How can the rocks date the layers, if the layers date the rocks? That's what's called “circular reasoning.” One minute they say the rock determines the age of the fossil, the next they say the fossil determines the age of the rock.

Darwin said “It is a truly wonderful fact— that all plants throughout all time and space should be related to each other—” –The Origin of the Species p 170.
The evolutionist agrees with Darwin and says all life on earth evolved from primordial soup, which then somehow formed into many different species like birds, animals, plants, fish etc; and those birds, animals, plants and fish evolved into many different types of species themselves. For example, they believe a bird later formed different types of lizards, horses and dogs. They also believe that plants created everything from vines to trees to flowers, and fish evolved into dinosaurs, apes and humans. If that’s true, then I have to ask the evolutionist why is it for the last 6000 years of recorded history that not a single new species has ever been created? Scientific fact is, we still have many of the old species among us, and we know of many that did in fact become extinct. But not a single bird has been found that used to be a fish. And not a single bird has been found that is related to a lizard. If life truly evolves like they say it does, why did it all of a sudden stop dead in its tracks 6000 years ago? After all, if life is as they define it to be, then it must be a constant evolutionary process for life to continue, which means that evolutionary process be never ending. Some have claimed that mutations are evolution because of some moth that changed its color years ago. Real scientists discovered that the moth changed its color because of its environment. In other words, if just changing its color means they evolved, then that must mean that every time I work in the garden and get a tan I’m actually evolving?

And by the way, I say 6000 years because as Christians we know by reading Genesis chapters 1 & 2 that our Lord created all that is seen and unseen in creation week 6000 years ago. We also know this is when creation stopped and He hallowed the day He rested. We call that day Sabbath to this day and we keep it holy to acknowledge Him as our Creator every seventh day. Could it be this is why Satan inspired Darwin with evolution? I believe so because evolution allows you to hide the fact you were created and in so doing removes your requirement to acknowledge Him as Lord which would mean you need to and obey Him since He truly would know what’s best for you seeing how it is He that made you.

Getting back, the evolutionist believes the evolutionary cycle is never ending, but they too cannot explain why according to their Darwin inspired calculations that there has been no new species recorded for hundreds of millions of years, let alone the true 6000 years as reality dictates.

They also state it takes billions of years for each animal, insect or plant to evolve. If that's true, why do we have termites? Termites eat wood but can't digest it. In their intestines are smaller insects that digest the cellulose the termites place in there for them. Kind of like the worm inside the cricket. The termite can't exist without the smaller insect, and the smaller insect can't live without the termite. If evolution is true neither insect should be on this planet.

There are even some that believe in Creation, but not the Bible version wherein it took only 6 days. These so called "Creationists" insist it took 1000 years for each "day" of creation because 2 Peter 3:8 says, "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" If they aren’t twisting that passage out of context and it is as they claim, why do we have wasps that rely on certain plants to lay their eggs within them to procreate. And if this is true, how do those plants survive without the wasp pollinating them? If the plants and the wasps were created thousands of years apart, how does the plant pollinate without the wasp, and how does the wasp procreate without the plant? That means the 1000 years for each day recorded in Genesis must be wrong by simply applying easy to research reality.

Moving right alone, we have the big bang theory which declares a spinning dot of absolutely nothing exploded to form all the planets, stars, asteroids, black holes, quasars, nova’s, and primordial soup found on earth. According to the scientific discovery called, “conservation of angular momentum”, which actually means, if what’s spinning in a clockwise manner explodes, everything flying off of it will explode in the exact same manner. That being the case, why is it 2 planets, and numerous moons orbiting many planets in our galaxy alone spin in a different direction than all the others. If their big bang theory was true, why is it those planets and moons appear to have come off of a different explosion? Were there two big bangs?

Jumping ahead a bit, let’s take a look at man for example. The Word of God says we were created with Human bodies that have organs that are designed to live forever. Science has recently proven that if we were to learn something new every second, we would take well over 3 million years to exhaust the memory capacity of our "post flood" brains. (Pre-flood brains were 3 times larger) Now keep in mind, no one learns something every second. They just calculated it that way to get an educated idea. Most will learn something new once a week or even once a month and later in life once every few months or so. That means the human brain, as small as it is now, can handle the data for literally billions of years. That being the case, we see that evolutionists also claim that all species evolve after there is a need for a change. So I have to ask, how is it possible for us to have a brain that could hold enough info to last over billions of years, when all we can live up to is 90 -100 years? If evolution is true, why haven’t we evolved to age extremely slow so as to meet the requirements of our own brains, wherein we can live for an eternity?

When you get time I would like to ask you to view a video of a scientific experiment wherein they show how sound waves can actually create visible light when they are directed towards a body of water. The video can be found online. It’s titled, "What happens when you collapse an underwater bubble with a soundwave?" The link is found in box #4 of this sermon’s notes. When you watch that video you will be amazed at how nothing but sound-waves pointed at water did in fact create light, just as the Bible dictates.

Genesis 1:2-3, "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."
Ok.. Picture a sphere of water in Space. God literally SPEAKS and says, "Let there be light." That amazingly loud blast of sound causes the water to form a small bubble within it. Then that sphere of water collapses internally upon that bubble, and as we see in that video, "there was light" created at that exact moment. Better yet, the scientists also discovered there was an enormous amount of heat generated when that happened, and the method by which the heat arrives is what they deduce to this day is what caused our Sun to be formed in our Solar System. Pretty convincing argument for the creationist is it not?

Ok.. let’s talk dinosaurs. Were you aware that Tyrannosaurus Rex was not a meat eater? Yes, I am fully aware that every evolutionist, and Hollywood director insists that he was. But Christian scientists have recently discovered two things about T-Rex that proves we have all been lied to for quite some time. They found that the roots of T-Rex’s teeth were only 2 inches deep. That means, had he bit into the hide of another dinosaur in his day he would have lost all his teeth. When you compare the size of T-Rex and the fact his roots were only 2 inches deep, he couldn’t have possibly been able to break the hide of such animals as most evolutionists have him eating. His teeth would have broken off before he even broke the skin. Better yet, were you also aware that these same scientists took one of the teeth they dug up, cut it in half, and they actually found the teeth to be gorged with chlorophyll all the way to the center of the tooth. This confirms he never ate meat. Ever.

Now because this evidence is so well known now among scientific circles, evolutionists know they cannot say it’s not true. The data has been published, and they were caught in a lie. But to try and cover the lie, some evolutionists now claim his teeth are gorged with chlorophyll because he ate dinosaurs that were vegan. Problem with that theory is, it still doesn’t negate the fact that the teeth of T-Rex only had roots that went 2 inches deep, which would still make it impossible for them to eat meat. Still, the Christian scientists also offered data that showed the teeth of modern day animals that eat only herbivores. That’s right, their teeth had absolutely no chlorophyll in them.

By the way, this discovery concerning T-Rex also validates the Biblical record once again! Before the flood of Noah, which is when evolutionists claim dinosaurs roamed the earth, and they also claim no man was alive then, we have a Bible verse that declares they were not originally designed to be meat eaters.

Genesis 1:30, "And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so."
Still, some claimed this to be impossible by using mankind as an example. They claimed that we as humans must eat meat to receive the proteins found in meat to grow big and strong. They claim that without meat we couldn’t gain weight or become strong enough to sustain life. Besides the fact that you can actually find much more protein in some plant life than you will ever find in meat, look around on planet earth for a moment. Look at all the HUGE animals like cows, horses, hippos, elephants, rhinos. etc. Or look at some of the ancient dinosaurs that evolutionists do admit were herbivores, like the brontosaurus or thunder lizards that were the largest mammals ever to walk the earth. All of them were herbivores! How did they get so big? How is it the elephant, giraffe or hippos, just to name a few, are so large yet they never eat meat?

Now I would like to get into a few scientific facts I found that can do a much better job and confirming what I saw. After all, I’m no scientist. So, I would like to quote a few if you don’t mind.

The temptation with this book is to go full Macaulay and write a ten thousand, fifteen thousand, twenty thousand word review that tells you much more about me and how clever I am than about the book. This temptation I will try to avoid. At least a bit. If you are reading this review I expect you are familiar with its thesis: Legutko has lived in Communist Poland and in Post-Communist Poland and has written this book about the worrying similarities he sees between the two. Everyone must think the same, or else; and the false gods of the ‘Liberal Democratic’ West are not so very different from the idols of the Communist East.

“The atmosphere the systems produce is particularly conducive to engendering a certain type of mentality: that of a moralist, a commissar, and an informer rolled into one. In one sense, this person may think that he performs something particularly valuable to humanity; in another, the situation helps him to develop a sense of power otherwise unavailable to him; and in a third, he often cannot resist the temptation to indulge in a low desire to harm others with impuntiy. For this reason tracking opposition and defending orthodoxy turned out to be so attractive that more and more people fail to resist it.”

Like most of my countrymen, I am used to thinking of ‘political correctness’ as an American disease, so it is salutary and sobering to read a book such as this which is primarily concerned with the impact of the same disorder on the European Union.

The odd thing about reading this book was that as I went on I found myself growing more cheerful and optimistic. It started from the question I have learned to ask myself, whenever I write a long screed complaining about something: ‘What positive alternative is there to this bad thing I am complaining about?’ I think it makes a difference if you can propose a solution, as well as describing a problem, even if (like Dostoevsky) nobody ever remembers your solution and only applauds how elegantly you have stated the problem. So, I thought, what is the alternative to this ‘liberal democracy’ which Legutko does not like, and which I do not particularly like either?

For almost all places, at almost all times, have enforced an irksome conformity. We who lived when Communism collapsed have been lucky enough to have lived through one of those stages of rapid flux from one to another, in which for a brief period of time all the walls seem to vanish like the insubstantial fabric of a dream, and endless vistas of possibility stretch out in all directions. ‘What joy it was in that dawn to be alive...’ But the steady-state condition of human society is not like that.

Legutko never spells out clearly what sort of society he would like to see instead. Is there any time we can point back to and think, that was definitely better than this one? I think if we read any history at all we have to say, no. Was the Poland between the wars a society where hierarchical structures guided people towards high ideals while letting them speak and write freely, harmoniously combining the best features of Christendom and the Enlightenment? I don’t think so. Or is Legutko looking back nostalgically to the glory days of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth? I think, though he never says so explicitly, is that something like that is what he would like: an aristocracy, a constitutional monarchy, respect for western culture, and an overarching Church that tolerate minorities magnanimously rather than being a tolerated minority itself. It would be nice to have more detail of this positive vision. He does say: “Christianity is the last great force that offers a viable alternative to the tediousness of liberal-democratic anthropology” (And I wish this were true; but atheist statist authoritarianism that puts bread on the table is still going very strong; and Islam is a force looking stronger every day).

Christianity had nigh 1500 years to work on Europe, and very rarely reached the heights of the Most Serene Republic in its best years. I am sure that the average person plucked from a field or street anywhere in Europe between the time of Constantine and the French Revolution had more to fear from speaking their mind if they disagreed with the prevailing orthodoxy than an average person you were to pluck out nowadays. So if Legutko’s preferred vision is a Distributist neo-mediaeval republic on the Polish-Lithuanian Commonealth model, I would expect, from a philosopher and political scientist, more detail about how will get there, and how we will incorporate checks and balances to avoid all the flaws we know Christendom was prone to.

It is not clear how Christianity differs in essence from Communism and ‘Liberal Democracy’, as described by Legutko: “Once a man joins an ideological group all becomes clear to him and everything falls into place; everything is either right or wrong, correct or incorrect.” Except that everything will fall into place in the way Legutko approves of. Furthermore, offering God to Man only as a means to the end of ordering society seems to me to somewhat sacriligious. It is like offering Victoria Falls as a means to make a cup of tea.

Ah, I have worked it out. This is primarily a Euroskeptic polemic, the goal of which is to fire up as many Euroskeptics as possible within a ‘broad tent’ of opposition to the nihilistic vision of European Union. As such, too much of a detailed positive vision would be counter-productive.

Where was I? Ah, why I got more cheerful the more I went along reading this book. Trying to think about where and when, if anywhere and anywhen, humanity was better off reminded me of all the other places besides Central Europe where things were much better than they were thirty years ago. There were a lot of them, and they were places where ‘Liberal Democracy’, broadly understood, was definitely on the side of the Angels. The problems Legutko talks about are problems of Western Europe and its overseas offshoots in the Americas and Australasia. All those places put together have a population less than that of China. While I yield to no man in my loathing for the unelected unrepresentative swill who tyrranise the Renegade Mainland Provinces, things are undoubtedly better than 30 years ago in China by a very great extent, and not only in material terms: people have more access to all the good things about Western culture that Legutko is keen on, there are many more people who, as Christians, are active participants in the Western culture that Legutko is keen on; and the worst excesses of ‘liberal democracy’ seem pretty harmless compared to the things that people have to put up with. In Korea, also, the growth of Christianity and liberal democracy over the past half-century have been positively rather than negatively correlated, as far as I can tell. In India, which again has about as many people as Europe and the Americas put together, people are also not only materially better off, but have much greater exposure to the good bits of Western civilisation, and the switch from ‘Third Way Socialism’ to something more like liberal democracy was a major driver of this. Indonesia has gone from dictatorship to something like liberal democracy; a peaceful and democratic transfer of power is not big news in Nigeria, which also has moved in the direction of liberal democracy with good results; ‘liberal democracy’ is still something people look at as a source of hope in places further to the periphery of Europe, like Turkey and Ukraine. In all these countries of course there are big problems, but political correctness does not rank highly among them. As I read through Legutko’s book, I thought about all these places more and more, and the declining relative importance of Europe and the Americas made me more and more cheerful about the way the world is going.

Legutko valuably points out the pernicious over-emphasis on ‘entertainment’ in the West. We are all doped up on electronic soma 24/7 so we never stop to think about the Ultimate End of Man, or the Nature of Reality, or What Constitutes the Good Life. But I guess, honestly, not too many of us ever thought about those things back when we were tilling our barley fields and occasionally seeing someone who could read in the distance.

It would be gutless of me to review this book without empirically testing its hypothesis. It is obvious from evolutionary biology that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered, as the Catholic Church teaches, and that it is almost certainly a mental rather than a physical disorder.