DEVOLVED: Exposing Darwin's Fairy Tale
DEVOLVED: Exposing Darwin's Fairy Tale
Introduction
Many unbelievers claim that evolution is a proven scientific fact. If you disagree, they usually laugh at you. You’re seen as one of those Bible thumpers who believes Noah and the arc, donkeys talk, and a man was raised from the dead.
Usually, Christians are very fearful of the theory of evolution…the Bible is clear that all creatures in creation were made in 6 literal days, but secular scientists who are “smarter than us” are saying otherwise.
Who’s standard will we follow?
Some Christians trust scientists so much, they consider their work as an extension of God’s revelation. Some swallow the “14-billion year old universe” pill without concern and rush to interpret Genesis “figuratively” so they can have both.
But what if I told you that evolution wasn’t a proven scientific fact?
What if I told you that evolution wasn’t even a good theory?
What if I told you that evolution was such a bad theory, that if an 8th grader presented it for his final project, he would get expelled from school for how irrational it was.
Enough is enough. Christians have been beat down with this theory for decades without an answer.
My goal is to empower you by showing that, given the raw observable scientific evidence, coupled with God’s word, the theory of evolution is nothing more than an adult fairy tale.
Chapter 1 - The Religion of Evolution
Evolution Defined
First, the evolution I’m talking about is what most call macro-evolution. This is the view that one species of animal transforms completely into another. Imagine a dinosaur turning into a bird over millions of years in order to survive. That’s what I’m talking about.
We are not talking about micro-evolution. Micro-evolution is when there’s a change of form or function within a species. Imagine a species of bird gets a sharper beak based on having kids with sharp beaks, that would be micro-evolution.
Micro-evolution is just what happens when some species of animals have more kids. But what about macro-evolution?
From Fish to Philosopher
When we talk evolution, most people think of Charles Darwin. But evolution did not come from Darwin, it was already present in ancient Greek philosophy. Anaximander, one of the earliest ionian philosophers was an evolutionist.1
“For Anaximander (611 - 546 B. C. E) believed the world had arisen from an undifferentiated, indeterminate substance, the apeiron. The Earth, which had coalesced out of the apeiron, had been covered in water at one stage, with plants and animals arising from mud. Humans were not present at the earliest stages; they arose from fish…”
Evolution was, and always has been, a philosophy, not a scientific theory. Nobody observed something in nature scientifically and said “That’s it, its gotta be evolution!”
The truth is, every human from birth understands, without question, that God created the universe. We are without excuse:
19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
With Darwin’s work coming to a finish, later scientists had to work day and night to give the theory a cosmetic of respectability. If they could just make it look legit, they could go to bed at night telling themselves that God didn’t exist.
Evidence?
Do you remember science class when you were in high school? Do you remember some of the things that make a scientific theory a strong one?
Well, firstly, you would need evidence, right? If I went to my teacher and said “I think germs don’t exist, its all just a lie”, would he take my word for it? Of course not, he would ask me for evidence.
To the embarrassment of the evolutionists, there is no evidence for macro-evolution.
It’s simple, we’ve never observed a species turn into another species.
We will explore this deeper later, but let’s take the fossil record for example.2 Do we find evidence of gradual development of species?
No, on the contrary we find:
Sudden appearance of a fully complex life-form (no simpler versions prior)
Stasis - that species stays the same form and doesn’t evolve or change.
In fact, there’s no evidence for the other parts of evolution either (we’ll get to that). But that’s no fun is it? I thought we had something? I thought we had a way out of that whole “I have to obey God because he made me” thing.
So what are the evolutionists to do if science can’t help them? Politics.
One great example of evolution politics in high definition is the British natural history museum. In 1981, the museum created an exhibit around Darwin’s evolutionary theory.3
The label included in the text that it was "one possible explanation" for the origin of life, as well as "not strictly scientific because it has not been empirically demonstrated"
Because of those 2 expressions, enough political pressure was produced that the museum had to remove any acknowledgement of the problems with Darwin’s theory.
That’s right, they were bullied into shoving Darwin’s sacred religion into everyone’s brains, as if it were actually a proven scientific fact.
As we’ll see later on, the theory of evolution is simply an unsupported religion for people who need a non-God explanation for life. This is nothing new, in fact, Paul was dealing with this in the first century.
8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.
Chapter 2 - Big Bang Billions-of-Years Nonsense
Going deeper into our journey, I’m going to follow a framework to help you understand the folly of evolution. I’m going to start at the beginning, and go through each step of evolution in order. At each leg of the journey, we can see if evolution is still holding up.
The first step of our journey is the Big Bang. Most evolutionists hold to the Big Bang theory, and couple that with the universe being 14 billion years old.
However, in this chapter we’re going to see that the evidence points to a young universe, not a 14-billion year old one.
Violating the 1st Law
The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy can be converted from one form to another with the interaction of heat, work and internal energy, but it cannot be created nor destroyed, under any circumstances.
Basically you can’t create energy, you can only use energy that is already there.
So where did our universe come from? Well, in secular models, the #1 rule is, you cannot have a creator or any purpose behind the beginning of the universe. In other words, our universe must come from nothing.
The problem with this model? You are violating the 1st law of thermodynamics at the largest scale at the beginning of your model.
Not only is this theory absurd because it claims something came from nothing, it’s claiming that everything came from nothing.
So the largest amount of energy in the history of the universe is created from nothing, but then for some reason, after that it’s impossible to do?
Violating the 2nd Law
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that entropy always increases.
Basically, hot things cool off. Imagine you walk into a room and a hot cup of coffee is on the table. How long has the coffee been there?
Well, not long, since the coffee is still hot. To put it crudely, the hotter something is, the “younger” it is. Let’s hold onto that for a minute.
The moon is not cool inside (yet), we actually see evidence of gas venting4 as well as recent volcanic deposits. This shows that the Moon has recent geological activity.
If the moon was billions of years old, the moon should have cooled off long ago.
Thomas Watters of the Smithsonian Institution said this:
“The whole idea that a 4.6 billion-year-old rocky body like the moon has managed to stay hot enough in the interior and produce this network of faults just flies in the face of conventional wisdom.”
But there’s more. Pluto is currently resurfacing (equivalent to volcanic activity), which means it is distributing material to even out its surface. But where is the source of energy for this?
Pluto does not have tidal flexing going on. According to secular models, Pluto should be cold and dead. But yet, it’s geologically active.
Alan Stern said
“Finding that Pluto is geologically active after 4.5 billion years - there’s not big enough typeface to write that in. It’s unbelievable.”5
If the universe is thousands of years old, this is not a problem, but if its billions…it’s a huge problem.
The Stars Are Hot
Maybe the universe isn’t billions of years old, maybe its just eternal! Maybe it’s been here forever and we’re just floating in it!
Well, stars have not cooled off. Could stars have been there…forever?
Well no, if they were there forever, they would have cooled off or blew up forever ago.
If the universe was present forever ago, stars would not be here. The fact that we see stars tells us that the universe is not eternally old.
Well can new stars not form? Aside from the secular issues with this theory, star formation requires energy, of which there is a finite amount in our universe. If the universe had been there forever, there would no longer be energy for stars to form in the first place.
So if we can see that the universe is not eternally old with the 2LOT, then what does that mean? The universe had a beginning.
Many Christians actually endorse the Big Bang blindly because it’s one path to show the universe had a beginning.
No one has to hold to the Big Bang model to prove the universe had a beginning. This is great news considering the model itself is infested with holes and errors.
Want to prove the universe had a beginning? Do you see the sun during the day? Do you see the stars at night? Yes? There you go, the universe had a beginning.
The Dilemma
We must ask our secular friends, did the universe have a beginning? Well, how many answers do we have?
Yes, the Universe had a beginning
No, the Universe is eternal
If you are trying to construct a secular (non-Christian) model of the history of the universe, where there is no creator, both answers violate the laws of thermodynamics.6
Yes, It Had a Beginning, with No Creator!
If you hold that the universe had a beginning, and there was no creator, that means everything came from nothing.
So what existed before the beginning? Well the answer has to be nothing, because if everything began, and there was something before that beginning, whatever began wasn’t really the beginning, because some other type of matter existed before it.
So if you hold that the universe began in a secular model, you have to hold that before the universe, there was absolutely nothing. And then, for some reason, there was something.
Before moving forward, I wanted to do a quick lesson on “nothing” just so we’re all on the same page.
Nothing can only create nothing
Nothing can do nothing
From nothing, comes…nothing
Not only can you not go from nothing to everything, you can’t even go from nothing to something.
People like Lawrence Krauss have made books claiming they have a theory about how a universe came from nothing.7
The problem is, they define nothing very differently than, well, what its definition is.8
Krauss even admits this problem at the beginning of his book.
When Krauss says the word “nothing”, he really means the universe came from an empty vacuum of space permeated with quantum fields that were capable of producing particles.
Well, that’s not nothing, is it? That’s what we layman people call “something.”
No, It’s Eternal, with No Creator!
The other choice is, that the universe is eternal, with no creator.
As previously mentioned, the 2nd law of thermodynamics blows this theory out of the water. If the universe was eternal, we wouldn’t see stars.
Think about this for a minute, there are very hot stars surrounded by cold space. The heat in the universe is still very uneven.
However, the 2LOT shows us that the universe wants to even itself out equally. If the universe was eternal…all stars would have cooled off or blown up forever ago. Since the universe hasn’t done that yet, by definition, it couldn’t have been here forever.
It would be like me bringing you to a freezing cold room that had 10, currently scolding hot coffee cups simmering and telling you “Oh these have been here forever”
Some people argue the “Oscillating Universe” model. Basically, the theory states that there was the Big Bang, which expanded the universe. Then eventually, the universe will constrict in the opposite direction until it hits a single point. This process continues forever.
This entire idea doesn’t work at the foundation. Thermodynamics shows us that, if you go from a Big Bang, and everything is expanding, and entropy is increasing…
That means the later condition (expanded universe) had more entropy than its original condition (the bang).
To go from where we are today (expanded), to a constricted universe, would require a reversal of entropy, or basically, time moving backward. This is not possible and violates thermodynamics. The universe is not eternal.
No Options?
Well, in secular models, a universe with a beginning is quite problematic. But even worse, an eternal universe doesn’t work either.
With no secular options left, is there a third option?
Yes: The universe had a beginning, but a supernatural creator (the Triune God of scripture) brought it into being.
God is in control of space, time and matter, so he is not constrained to the laws of thermodynamics. This allows the initial creation to form without violating these laws.
Any atheistic theories of the history of the universe are simply not allowed due to their repeated violation of the LOT.
The Boltzmann Brain Paradox
But let’s be generous for a minute. Let’s grant that the Big Bang happened just for a moment and see where it takes us.
Using the 2LOT, we can calculate the probability of how matter and energy is arranged.
A low entropy system is less probable
A high entropy system is more probable
So we can measure the entropy of a system, and that corresponds to the probability of that particular system actually existing.
Guess which one of these options the universe has today?
Low entropy
With such low entropy, our universe is mathematically improbable. So even if something could create itself from nothing (which we already reviewed is impossible)…
Our universe is still astronomically unlikely to be the result of a random unguided event like that. This is important for our discussion so hold onto that for a minute.
Imagine someone came up to you and said “I was trying to think about where New York City came from, and I think I figured out how it came into existence. I think it popped into existence from nothing.”
You reply “Cities don’t pop into existence from nothing”
They reply “Well I think they can, I think it’s a great explanation”
So to illustrate to your friend how silly the proposal is, you reply
“NYC has buildings, cars, people, highways…you’re saying that the city with everything in it popped into existence. It would be much easier for, say, someone's wallet, complete with the leather back & credit cards to have popped into existence.”
That is far more probable to have popped into existence vs the entire city…and even then, it’s still a ridiculous claim.
So how do we apply this to the Big Bang?
To put it simply, the Big Bang is so mathematically improbable based on the 2LOT, that it’s far more probable that the only thing that popped into existence is your brain.
You are just a floating brain with the right molecules in place to make it feel like you actually had a childhood and are a complete human.
Alan Guth, a cosmologist at MIT, pointed out that some calculations with this paradox result in an infinite number of free-floating brains for every normal brain, making it ‘infinitely unlikely for us to be normal brains’9
This also holds true for the multiverse theory. If you grant infinite universes, you grant you’re a floating brain just by probability.
The conclusion of the Big Bang, as it holds to its own standards, is that the universe doesn’t exist and that the Big Bang did not happen.
Can you imagine bringing forward a theory about the history of the universe that, on its own standards, denies the existence of the universe?
Chapter 3 - 2,000 Zeros Between Life & Non-Life
Many atheists claim that evolution is a proven scientific fact. If you disagree, they usually laugh, and go on to say things like:
“You’re one of those Bible thumpers aren’t you? You believe Noah and the arc too, right?”
But what if I told you that evolution was such a bad theory, that if an 8th grader presented it for his final project, he would get expelled from school for how irrational it was?
Well, that’s true, and I’m going to show you why in the next few posts. Today, we’re going to talk about how we can’t even get evolution to start if we wanted to.
Recent Posts from the Devolved Series
I make Repent Labs free for everyone so we can boldly defend Christ. To support my work, consider a paid subscription if you are in a position to. Either way, thanks for reading.
Subscribed
What We’ll Cover
The Math Problem
The Problem of Chirality
The Real Issue
Life from Non-Life
Assuming that the Big Bang happened (which we know from this post and this post that it didn’t), the first step on our evolutionary journey is what’s called abiogenesis.
“the original evolution of life of living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances”
Basically, how did life generate from non-life?
How did life appear randomly from no life at all? That’s a massive jump, especially in the chance universe that our secular friends live in.
Well, Christians don’t have to lift a finger to refute this. Evolutionists' own colleagues don’t even buy it.
The Math Problem
We’re not just talking about Christians beating evolutionists over the head with their Bibles, but secular mathematicians who have serious issues with the theory of evolution.
A number of Mathematicians in 1967 published their academic papers under the title Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution.1
These mathematicians are applying probability to the theory of evolution. Given a true random force (God is not behind it), there isn’t nearly enough time, even billions of years, for this to have happened.
Here’s a quote from Eden Murray from one of the published books:
“It is our contention, that if the word “random” is given a serious and crucial interpretation, from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible, and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws...”
That’s devastating. Eden is saying, if we’re truly going to say that evolution came from random chance, we need to wait for new natural laws.
How Many Zeros?
Going further, here is what Michael Denton points out in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis2
To get one cell by chance would require at least 100 functional proteins to appear simultaneously in one place.
The independent probability of any particular protein appearing is going to be hardly more than 10^-20.
So…it’s a 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance that one protein appears out of nowhere. But to get one cell, we need 100 of those proteins to appear, simultaneously, all in the same place.
If you gamble at Las Vegas and somebody offers you a probability of 1 in 10, those are bad odds. What about 1 in a 100? Well those are exceptionally bad odds.
Let’s go even deeper, what about 1 in a 1,000? Surely you’d be mad to even touch that game.
Denton pointed out that the maximum combined probability would be 1-in-10^2,000. 2,000 zeros.
To show you how bad that is, I wrote it out below
1 in 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 chance
And what would that achieve? One cell.
“But Joe, if we DO get 1 cell, then evolution is complete right?
Not at all, this is just for evolution to start.
The Problem of Chirality
Aside from our mathematician friends, there are many origin of life studies that aim to show life could have formed by itself, and without a creator.
To do that, you need proteins, and to make proteins you need amino acids. The problem is, when you make amino acids in a laboratory, you run into the issue of chirality.
Basically, amino acids can appear in left-handed, and right-handed forms. These are named based on the shape they make.3
The problem?
If life spontaneously generated from a warm pond somewhere, it would be made from the amino acids in a non-living environment.
But for life to form, amino acids are exclusively left-handed form. Yet, in a laboratory setting, making amino acids generates a mixture of left & right-handed forms. This does not support life.
Now some researchers try to construct a “filtering” system that separates the left from the right-handed amino acids. That way, they can have an exclusive collection of left-handed amino acids to create life from.
Well, when these filtering systems separate the amino acids, some of the left-handed amino acids will spontaneously change into the right-handed form.
“In other words? You cannot generate life from non-life.”
-The evidence
An Obsolete View
So, life coming from non-life isn’t looking too good. But this isn’t a new problem. In fact, abiogenesis is so unsupported, it’s classified as an obsolete view in many technical journals today.
From The McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms
“the obsolete concept that plant and animal life arise from nonliving organic matter,”
From the Oxford Dictionary of Science
“The development of living organisms from non-living matter, as in the supposed origin of life on Earth, or in the concept of spontaneous generation which was once held to account for the origin of life but which modern understanding of evolutionary processes has rendered outdated”
The Real Issue
So if abiogenesis is mathematically improbable, has no observable evidence of happening in nature, and isn’t even considered a credible theory among evolutionists’ own colleagues…
Then why is the theory of evolution still kicking around? If we can’t even get evolution started, then why hold to it? Doesn’t this just remove the possibility of evolution entirely?
The reason evolution is still a reigning dogma of the secular community is because people want evolution to be true.
If evolution is true, you and I…we can do whatever we want. Who cares? Aren’t we all just broccoli anyway?
When you reject God, you are left with absurdity. Things get so bad, that you become broccoli.
Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
1 Cor 1:20See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition…
Col 2:8
For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools
Romans 1:21–22
We’re Not Done
So the theory of evolution rests on the idea that life came from non-life. But as we’ve seen today, in the realm of mathematics and chemistry, this is an astronomical leap of faith.
But that’s not the only problem with evolution. Next week, we’re going to talk about the fossil record.
Evolution: What Is Required of a Theory?: Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution.
Chapter 5 - The True Terror of the Fossil Record
Many atheists claim that evolution is a proven scientific fact. If you disagree, they usually laugh, and go on to say things like:
“You’re one of those Bible thumpers aren’t you? You believe Noah and the arc too, right?”
But what if I told you that evolution was such a bad theory, that if an 8th grader presented it for his final project, he would get expelled from school for how irrational it was?
Well, that’s true, and I’m going to show you why in the next few posts. Today, we’re going to talk about how the fossil record doesn’t confirm evolution, it confirms something much scarier.
Recent Posts from the Devolved Series
I make Repent Labs free for everyone so we can boldly defend Christ. To support my work, consider a paid subscription if you are in a position to. Either way, thanks for reading.
Subscribed
Evolution in the Fossils?
As we’ve seen from the previous posts in this series, evolution can’t even start. Cosmologists and Chemists certainly can’t help the evolutionists here.
But what about the fossil record? If the theory of evolution were true and there was a gradual change in lifeforms, the fossil record should show any number of connecting links between lifeforms.
Well, does it?
Nothing :/
Unfortunately for the evolutionist, the fossil record shows life happening abruptly and in complex forms. There’s also gaps between different types of lifeforms.
There is also no fossil trace of an ape-like creature turning into a man. There have been many claimed missing links, but upon further observation, they are either man-made hoaxes, or misinterpreted chimp fossils.
Well then, paleontologists would be the first people to give up the theory of evolution, right? If they know the fossil record, they couldn't possibly continue holding to evolution…right?
Well a very prominent academic in evolution, Stephen Jay Gould, knew the fossil record very well. He knows it doesn't support Darwin’s theory.
So in 1977, as a leading advocate of evolution, he wrote an article entitled Punctuated Equilibrium in the journal Paleobiology, volume 3, page 145.1
According to Gould, the fossil record doesn’t support evolution as interpreted in a gradualistic sense. But, since we just know evolution is true (👀), the fossil record must prove to us that evolution took place.
According to Gould, when evolutionary change happens, it doesn’t happen gradually at all. It happens very fast, and then you have long periods of equilibrium (things staying the same).
So we just so happened to only have hundreds of millions of fossils that were laid down during one of those nice equilibrium periods, and not one of those pesky punctuated evolutionary periods.
Dr. Greg Bahnsen had this to say about Gould’s view:
“That amounts to saying; The proof of my theory in the fossil record is that there would be no proof in the fossil record.”
So…the Creation Account?
The main problem with this view is that it turns into a creation account by natural means. Remember, if we assume this punctuated equilibrium is true, that means that:
There were different “periods” of evolution
These periods were all “very short”
These periods were powered by “creative energy and change”
There are ‘gaps’ in between these periods
Well, the Genesis account already documents periods of creative bursts, separated by a gap of a day.
The difference with this theory is that, instead of God’s infinite mind powering the creation, its just a random force. This is absurd because, we have to ask…what generic natural force is powering these random ‘bursts’ of evolutionary change?
If the changes in evolution were random, we would expect that change to happen constantly over time, not in short bursts.
To continue, Stephen Jay Gould explains why gradualistic evolution has been preferred:
“The general preference that so many of us hold for gradualism is a metaphysical stance embedded in the history of western cultures. It is not a high-order empirical observation induced from the objective study of nature.”
And moving further on page 147:
"At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the 'official' position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record..."
As stated previously, gradual evolution is a philosophy, not a strict scientific theory. The fossil record simply confirms this.
So if the fossil record doesn’t support gradual evolution, what does it confirm? What can we conclude based on the evidence?
What is a Fossil?
Well, what is a fossil?
fossil
the remains or impression of a prehistoric organism preserved in petrified form or as a mold or cast in rock.
Basically, fossils are the remains of a once living creature found in rocks.
When you see a dead deer on the side of the road, what will happen in the coming days and weeks? Will it fossilize?
Well no, it’ll be eaten quickly by scavengers and bacteria. Nature will take its course.
So why do we see billions of fossils all over the world, with many of them being well preserved? What could explain this?
Rapid burial. If these animals were buried rapidly, their bodies would be preserved, out of reach from oxygen and burrowing animals. Fossilizing can happen very quickly, in fact, you can literally make a fossil at home, today.
Even evolutionists agree that the fossil record is mostly a history of catastrophe, not gradual development.
However, as Rampino notes, geological history is now commonly understood to be marked by long periods of stability punctuated by major ecological changes that occur both episodically and rapidly, casting doubt on Darwin's theory that "most evolutionary change was accomplished very gradually by competition between organisms and by becoming better adapted to a relatively stable environment."2
1. Marine Life
So, what kind of fossils do we find in the fossil record? For one, we find marine fossils (sea creatures) in rock layers way above sea level all over the world.
If these rock layers were created over thousands or millions of years, we wouldn’t expect to see sea creatures at this elevation.
Something carried these marine creatures to this height, something that we certainly don’t see today.
Dr. Andrew A. Snelling said this about the marine fossils
These marine fossils are found haphazardly preserved in this limestone bed. The crinoids, for example, are found with their columnals (disks) totally separated from one another, while in life they are stacked on top of one another to make up their “stems.” Thus, these marine creatures were catastrophically destroyed and buried in this lime sediment.3
2. Fossils in Action
We also find fossils of animals who are in the middle of a very temporary state. Take for example the picture above. This is a documented fossil of a fish in the middle of eating another fish.
If this fossil was laid down over a long period of time, it wouldn’t be found in this position. It would have already eaten the other fish by now.
Something happened to this fish that was so quick & abrupt, there was no time for it to even finish its dinner.
So What Happened?
To recap, we know that fossils are evidence of a rapid burial. We find billions of fossils all over the globe, which points to a global event.
We find marine fossils in elevations way above sea level, which means this global event carried them up there. And we even find fossils of animals in the middle of a very temporary state.
The question is…what kind of global, cataclysmic event could have possibly buried this many animals, in such a short period of time, simultaneously, while having the strength & capability of throwing T-Rex’s around like chew toys?
The Judgement of God
It was the global flood, as detailed in the genesis account. About 4,300 years ago, God judged the entire world with a global flood due to the wickedness of humans.
The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Genesis 6:5
God caused the fountains under the earth to break open with water, as well as torrential rain to pour down to create this flood condition.
…on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened. And rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
Genesis 7:11–12
Dr. Terry Mortenson explains more about what this was like:
The language therefore clearly implies earth movements on the deep ocean floor as it broke open (i.e., earthquakes), which would trigger volcanic eruptions, and tsunamis, coupled with torrential global rain, all of which would result in unimaginable destruction.4
The global flood was a historic event that absolutely decimated the planet. The judgement of God was on full display against the rebellion of man.
With the exception of Noah, his family, and the animals on the ark, no other land creature was saved.
He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark.
Genesis 7:23
Now What?
So if you’re someone who holds to evolution, maybe you’re an atheist, or you reject God and his word, what should you do in response to the fossil record?
Repent (turn in sorrow and remorse), and ask God for forgiveness. The same God that once judged the earth at the time of the flood, will execute a greater judgement by fire at the end of history.
and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.
2 Peter 3:5–7
We have all fallen short of God’s standard, but by turning to Jesus as Lord and believing in his sacrifice, we can be saved. If you believe that Jesus Christ paid for your debt on the cross, and acknowledge him as LORD, you will be saved from the final judgement.
We’re Not Done
So, if the theory of evolution was true, we’d expect the fossil record to support it. But as we’ve seen today, the fossil record doesn’t confirm evolution, it reminds us of God’s previous judgement, and the certainty of his future one.
But that’s not the only problem with evolution. Next week, we’re going to talk about dinosaurs.
Chapter 6 - Dinosaurs Less Than 10,000 Years Old
Many atheists claim that evolution is a proven scientific fact. If you disagree, they usually laugh, and go on to say things like:
“You’re one of those Bible thumpers aren’t you? You believe Noah and the arc too, right?”
But what if I told you that evolution was such a bad theory, that if an 8th grader presented it for his final project, he would get expelled from school for how irrational it was?
Well, that’s true, and I’m going to show you why in the next few posts. Today, we’re going to talk about how dinosaurs have been kidnapped and used to brainwash the masses that the evolutionary timeline is true.
Recent Posts from the Devolved Series
I make Repent Labs free for everyone so we can boldly defend Christ. To support my work, consider a paid subscription if you are in a position to. Either way, thanks for reading.
Subscribed
They Start ‘em Early
It would be weird if you hadn’t already heard the “150 million years ago dinosaurs walked the planet” spiel by now. Most of us get this imported in our brain at an early age when we’re buying our first dino toys.
These are big numbers…100’s of millions of years. Are dinosaurs really that old? Certainly if they were, that would support the evolutionary theory.
Well I’m here to tell you that, no, they’re not. Dinosaurs have been kidnapped by the evolutionists to push their unsupported, pagan philosophy. Today we’re going to see that dinosaurs are quite young.
How Old are Dinosaurs?
How old are dinosaurs? Surprisingly enough, there is no label on fossils when we find them. Scientists can’t just run an experiment and then “Eureka! Its 70 million years old!”
The age of dinosaurs is a historical science question. The problem is, evolutionists just assume the age of fossils by comparing the depth the bones were found with their assumptions about how old those rock layers are.1
To prove to you that these assumptions are incorrect, we’re going to take Mount St. Helens as an example.
Mount St. Helens
In 1980, Mount St. Helens erupted2. Here’s a quick description of what it was like:
As the land slid away, molten rock at temperatures reaching 1700° F (925° C) exploded water into steam and blasted out over the northern landscape. Within seconds, this blast cloud destroyed 200 square miles (515 km2) of forests—ripping up some areas and tossing the trees about in the sediment, blowing over other trees and stripping the leaves and limbs off those furthest away from the blast. The blast cloud spread out over the land at speeds over 650 mph (1,040 km/h).3
In 1992, just over 10 years after it’s eruption, a sample was taken on a lava dome at Mount St Helens.4
The dating method the researchers used was the potassium-argon method (widely used in geological circles). The laboratory was not told that the specimen was only 10 years old.
You would think the results should at least come back as a very young age. Right?
Well, they didn’t. The projected age using this method, of this 10 year old sample, ranged from 340,000 to 2.8 million years.
If we can’t trust this method to date rocks of known age, why would we trust it with rocks of unknown age?
DNA Decay
Moving further, A study5 was done to determine how quickly DNA will decay in bone. They found that, even under the best possible conditions, DNA will only last at max about 10,000 years.
Well…researchers found DNA in a dinosaur skull.6 The “supposed” age of the dinosaur by secular standards was 75,000,000 years old. If DNA can only last at max, 10,000 years…but the “age” of the dinosaur is 75,000,000, how is that possible?
It’s possible because this dinosaur isn’t 75M years old. That number is a guess based off of evolutionist assumptions. The dinosaur was likely buried from the global flood a little over 4,000 years ago, which makes sense of the DNA found.
Evan Saitta with the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago had this to say
These organic materials... are understood to be among the least stable biomolecules over long periods of time and under the heat of deep burial during fossilization. However, it is the extreme age of the samples that is striking. This 75-million-year-old fossil is, at least, one or two orders of magnitude older than the expected preservation limits of DNA and proteins.7
Soft Tissue in a T-Rex
Moving further, a researcher found red blood cells and soft tissue from a T-Rex femur.8 It’s literally still elastic. Could these last millions of years in these conditions? Of course not.
Non-Existent Fossil Evidence
We’re also told about the Dinosaur family tree like the one shown below. This is what the evolutionary storyline tries to portray. The White filling is where there is actual fossil evidence, the grey area is where there are evolutionist assumptions.
What do you notice? There’s no evidence in the transitioning sections. If you remove all the grey, you simply get evidence for the creation account in genesis.
The Real Issue
With the presence of DNA in fossils, the fossil record itself, and the unreliable dating methods that evolutionists use, all the data confirms the biblical timeline, not the millions of years we are spoon fed from childhood.
So why do evolutionists continue to push the Dinosaur story of millions of years? Because boy that would be convenient, wouldn’t it? Imagine if evolution were true and you and I could just do what we wanted?
The reality is, God made dinosaurs at the same time he made all of the other land animals. And as we learned last week, God also judged the world with water just over 4,000 years ago.
This judgement was an image of the judgement to come, where all men will reap what they have sown.
We’re Not Done
So dinosaurs are touted as some of the foundational evidence of gradual evolution. But as we’ve seen today, dinosaurs aren’t really that old at all, they’re quite young.
But the question is, if dinosaurs aren’t millions of years old…what exactly happened to them? That’s what we’ll cover next week.
Chapter 7 - Sex for No Reason
Many atheists claim that evolution is a proven scientific fact. If you disagree, they usually laugh, and go on to say things like:
“You’re one of those Bible thumpers aren’t you? You believe Noah and the arc too, right?”
But what if I told you that evolution was such a bad theory, that if an 8th grader presented it for his final project, he would get expelled from school for how irrational it was?
Well, that’s true, and I’m going to show you why in the next few posts. Today, we’re going to talk about how sex organs refute the idea of gradual evolution.
Recent Posts from the Devolved Series
I make Repent Labs free for everyone so we can boldly defend Christ. To support my work, consider a paid subscription if you are in a position to. Either way, thanks for reading!
Subscribed
Bacteria Are Better
On the theory of evolution, we’re told that lifeforms that are more adept to their environment survive, and those that are not as adept, die out.
That means evolution is preferable to lifeforms who multiply the most. The more kids you have, the more likely you’ll last and survive in the environment you’re in.
Well if that’s true, then why did lifeforms evolve beyond the bacterial stage?1 You see, bacteria multiply very quickly, through division.2 Elementary school children get bacteria to grow in their classroom, it’s not hard.
And yet…there’s all of these animals we see that have very complicated ways of having children. They need to have sex in order to have babies.
What’s the problem? Intercourse complicates having children. Instead of having thousands or millions of children like bacteria can, animals that require sex are now reduced down to a handful of kids. Why was that advantageous?
The reality is, on evolution’s own terms, if lifeforms evolved into complex life solely on the basis for survival, evolution wouldn’t have happened. We would have just stayed bacteria forever.
Useless Sex
But let’s be generous, we don’t want to be too harsh here. Let’s just say that, for some reason, mutations started to happen and bacteria lifeforms began to evolve.
And then let’s go further and say, somewhere along the line, they began to evolve with genatalia (sex organs).
Question; what is the advantage of having sex organs that don’t function?
Remember, these organs evolved gradually over time (otherwise, it’s just a creation account). For example, that means at one point, a male bacteria had partially created male genatalia, without anyway to use it to reproduce.
Why? Why would bacteria keep on with this partially created male genatalia if it served no purpose.
Until the whole sex system is in place and a male and female come together successfully…there’s no use for sex organs.
Male & Female Madness
But let’s keep going for a minute. Let’s say, for some reason, bacteria evolved with non-functioning versions of male and female genatalia.
How long is a female human woman fertile for? Well usually around 40 years right?
Let’s be generous and just say 100 years. We have 100 years for a woman to be able to get pregnant.
Evolutionists want us to believe that in this narrow window of 100 years, a male AND a female had functioning genatalia, simultaneously, knew what to do with that genatalia, had intercourse, and successfully reproduced from it?
And after that random miracle of mutation, they decided, for no other reason, to keep doing it? Do you know what we call ideas like these?
Asinine3
extremely or utterly foolish or silly
We’re Not Done
So evolutionists tell us that lifeforms that reproduce the most are the ones most adept to survive. But as we’ve seen today, if this was true, we should never have evolved in the fist place.
But that’s not the only problem with evolution. Next week, we’re going to talk about survival of the fittest.
Chapter 8 - Natural Selection Kidnapped
Natural Selection is Real
Before we get too critical of our evolutionist friends, I want to remind you that natural selection is 100% true.
“…Basically, natural selection is the principle that organisms that have traits well-suited to their environment tend to survive and reproduce in greater numbers than organisms with traits that are not well-suited to their environment. In extreme cases, the organisms that are less suited to their environment are driven to extinction.”1
Here's a fake example, imagine 2 types of dogs. One has short hair, one has long hair.
These dogs live in a very cold environment, so naturally, the dog with the long hair genes survives longer, and the dog with short hair dies. The short hair dog has not left any children, since he died :(
The long-haired dog however left many children, since he did survive. This is a genetic process that God built into his creation, which is responsible for the vast amount of diversity we see.
But did you notice something in the example I gave?
Both dogs were Dogs.
They didn't transform into a new species of animal over thousands and millions of years. They immediately pass down genes to their dog children.
Natural Selection Stolen
Unfortunately, natural selection got kidnapped into the regime of gradual evolution. Using natural selection as a foundation, evolutionists claim that animals evolved based on their environment.
Giraffes started with short necks, but then one awesome giraffe had a 10-foot neck because "why not", and that giraffe ate more food and survived.
At the surface, this might actually make sense too, but the problem is, if the environment sucks, animals don't stick around for millions of years and change their bodies, they move.
Those short-necked giraffes would have just found shorter trees. This is not only more practical, it's actually within the mental capacity of the animal.
If giraffes can't even talk to me, why would I expect them to think "Gee wiz, I need to grow a longer neck" and then even crazier, actually grow longer necks on demand.
Useless Organs
Another thing we're told is that mutations (like long necks) "stick around" because they're advantageous for the animal.
But, the theory of evolution also tells us that it was a gradual process over a long period of time.
So...let's see how this works on the human heart. The human heart evolved over many years slowly and gradually...but the only reason the heart continued to evolve is because the earliest versions of it were still advantageous.
Question...what's the advantage of a 1/3rd developed heart? What would a non-functioning heart do for you? How about lungs? What was the use of the 1/10th developed lungs vs the 1/5th developed lungs?
This idea is ridiculous because all of the systems we observe in nature (including our own bodies) have very specific purposes.
They are designed to do certain things. Many of these systems would be useless if they didn't have every single component functioning all in one shot.
I highly recommend watching this amazing video2 about the 4D design of DNA. This is just one example of how impossible it would be to gradually develop a system as complex as this, via random mutation.
We’re Not Done
So evolutionists tell us that the most fit lifeforms survive, and that is how evolution gradually progresses. But as we’ve seen today, this entire theory is circular and untestable.
But that’s not the only problem with evolution. Next week, we’re going to talk about how evolutionists turn “nature” into God.
Chapter 9 - The Death of Evolution
Many atheists claim that evolution is a proven scientific fact. If you disagree, they usually laugh, and go on to say things like:
“You’re one of those Bible thumpers aren’t you? You believe Noah and the arc too, right?”
But what if I told you that evolution was such a bad theory, that if an 8th grader presented it for his final project, he would get expelled from school for how irrational it was?
Well, that’s true. Today, we’re going to conclude our 9-part "Devolved" series by simply granting that evolution is true and seeing where it takes us.
Buckle up my friend.
Recent Posts from the Devolved Series
I make Repent Labs free for everyone so we can boldly defend Christ. To support my work, consider a paid subscription if you are in a position to. Either way, thanks for reading!
Subscribed
Recap of What We've Learned
So far in this series, we've learned that evolution is a religion, not a scientific theory. We then learned that the evidence confirms a young universe, not a 14-billion year old one. We also learned that even if we granted the Big Bang to be true, it wouldn’t have happened.
After that, we found out that it was mathematically and chemically improbable to get life from non-life.
After that, we took a look at the fossil record and saw that it doesn't confirm evolution, it confirms the judgement of God at the global flood.
As if that wasn't enough, we took a look at dinosaurs and found out all of them are less than 10,000 years old, and that secular dating methods are based off of false assumptions.
After that, we learned that if evolution were true, we should have never evolved sex organs. And then, we took a look at how survival of the fittest ends up being circular.
But, there’s still one more thing that needs to be addressed.
Today, I’m going to assume that I’ve been wrong about everything so far. Seriously. I’m not joking.
Let's Be Generous
I’m going to wave the white flag and give Darwin his temporary victory. Let's say that every single step of the evolutionary philosophy is 100% true.
Let's say that:
Once upon a time, there was disorder.
We don't know why, but that disorder became orderly.
This ordered matter was inorganic, and, for reasons we don't know, it became living matter.
Then, mysteriously and without explanation, this living matter which was made up of identical forms, began to diversify.
From these diversified forms, for reasons we cant explain, they became varied but unintelligent.
After this, the unintelligent life forms became intelligent and articulate, for reasons we do not know.
Once this was accomplished, the intelligent articulate lifeforms miraculously began to use language.
And of course from there, not that we have an explanation of course, the language using lifeforms, became moral men.
So, if that’s what happened…that means that everything we see in the universe is just matter in motion. There are no supernatural forces in our universe.
No God. No right and wrong. No meaning.
Me and you?
Stardust bumping into stardust.
We're just a part of this great big universe that was here before us and will be here after us. You only live once, so live for yourself, find what makes you happy and don't let anyone stop you.
Let's grant it.
The Problem of Uniformity
Our evolution friends love to tell us that they hold to “science” as their ultimate standard. They even mock Christians, saying we have “blind faith” and despise being rational.
What’s interesting is…science itself RELIES on the universe being repeatable.
Since the universe is consistent, we can observe things in nature, and make a general statement about how that thing acts all the time.
If I drop a bowling ball and measure how fast it falls, and repeat it over and over again, I can confirm that gravity has a certain rate. That’s just good ole observable science.1
You would think if science relies on this principle, we should have a really, really good reason to trust it, shouldn’t we?
Well…on the evolutionary view, there is no reason to trust that the universe is consistent. If everything is just matter in motion, there can be no transcendent order. There is nothing “above” matter on this worldview that would cause it to be consistent day in and day out.
There can be no consistent laws, because consistency involves design and meaning, and there is no design and meaning on the evolutionary worldview.
On the Christian worldview, God not only created the universe, but He also upholds it and manages it, every second of the day.
"While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease."
Genesis 8:22"And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together."
Colossians 1:17"He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power."
Hebrews 1:3
I can trust that the future will be like the past because God has promised it will be. But if you’re an atheist who holds to evolution as our origin story, the question is…
Why do you?
Why would you expect gravity to stay the same? Why would you brush your teeth assuming your toothpaste will come out of the tube the same way every time?
Why, after burning your finger in a fire, would you avoid touching it again, assuming that fire is always hot?
In fact, if evolution were true, everything is possible. There are no bounds as to what could happen at any second of the day.
Most atheists who cling onto evolution point at Christians saying “You really believe a man rose from the dead? Donkey’s talking? Come on dude.”
Well…on the Christian worldview, God spoke the universe into existence from nothing…I think he can handle raising a few people from the dead?
The question I have for my atheist friends are…why do you have a problem with miracles?
Every second of the day is a miracle on the evolutionary worldview. Nothing to something, something to life, life to intelligence…the amount of miracles that have already occurred is astronomical
In fact, if you hold to the evolutionary view, why would you expect anything to be regular in the first place? You should look outside and say:
“well this is peculiar, where’s the disorder and chaos?”
The Problem of Mind
But that’s just the first stop on our tour of the evolutionary universe.
If everything is matter it motion, that also means that our "minds" are too. Your mind is reduced to your brain. Your brain is your mind.
Let's say I’m chatting with one of my evolutionist friends, and they say this to me:
"God doesn’t exist, we've gotten here from gradual evolution"
Well, on their own worldview, they wouldn't have a reason to believe that, because that statement is just their brain fizzing atheistic chemicals.
It's not an actual belief based on logic or rational thought, it’s just what their brain decided to spit out. It’s not their fault for saying those things, they couldn't help it.
As Dr Greg Bahnsen put it:
“...if atheism is true, there could be no reason to believe atheism is true...My brain just does what it does, and his brain just does what his does…”
So basically, if evolution happened, and we live in an atheistic universe, all logic, thought, rationality, meaning, and everything that you think and speak about…is reduced to brain fizz.
The Problem of Ethics
But we’re not done yet, because there is yet another problem that I think cuts deeper: Ethics
Ethics at its most basic level, is what we ought and ought not to do.2 I can murder 24 people, but should I? I can cheat on my spouse, but should I? These are ethical questions.
Here’s the problem…if we're all just stardust, then who cares about ethics?
Anyone can make an ethical claim like “Don’t do this” or “Do that”, but in a universe where everything is matter in motion…who cares? Those claims are all just opinion.
I hate that I have to write this out…but I want to give you an example so this sticks with you.
Let's say a man breaks into a family's home, kills the husband, rapes the Mom and beats the children in the basement before killing them too.
What’s wrong with this home invasion scenario?
Well, on the Christian worldview, this scene is absolutely horrible. All of those family members were made in the image of God and have value.
So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
Genesis 1:27
Going further, we as humans are called to love one another. This man's actions are a direct violation to God's eternal law, and he deserves the death penalty.
Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed,
for God made man in his own image.
Genesis 9:6
Even further, if he doesn’t repent, upon death he’ll spend eternity in Hell, where he will be tormented day and night forever and ever as a just punishment.
…he also will drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night…
Revelation 14:10–11
On the Christian worldview, ethics makes sense, and there is actual justice that is delivered; either to the law breaker in Hell, or on Jesus for those that believe in him. But what about our atheist friends who hold to evolution?
Does a ‘matter-in-motion’ universe make sense of ethics?
Let's ask Richard Dawkins, a consistent atheist:
The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.
River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life
So what's wrong with our home invasion scenario on the atheist worldview?
Absolutely, nothing.
If everything is matter in motion, there cannot be any absolute good or evil. The family in our example didn’t enjoy the home invasion, but you know what, our home invader did!
These are merely 2 opinions pitted against each other, so we can’t really know which is right or wrong can we? Just 2 stardust piles bumping into each other, right?
Even crazier? Hitler was an evolutionist. It was the evolutionary theory that propelled his philosophy.3
“Darwin viewed the “Caucasian” (white-skinned Europeans) as the dominant “race” in an evolutionary worldview. To many evolutionists at the time, mankind had evolved from ape-like creatures that had more hair, dark skin, dark eyes, etc. Therefore, more “evolved” meant less body hair, blond hair, blue eyes, etc.”
Bodie Hodge
Many atheists who hold to evolution are so disturbed by this, that they try to construct systems that can account for ethics while still holding to a naturalistic universe. However, all of these systems fail, and fail for 1 reason; they’re still living in God’s universe.
The Death of Evolution
The harsh truth is that, even if we grant that evolution happened, the Big bang, ape man, the whole shebang, and concede for a minute that God doesn’t exist…evolution still can’t hold up, because the entire system implodes on itself.
Why do people still hold onto it then? If this worldview can’t stand on it’s own 2 feet, if it’s not true even when we grant it to be true, and the scientific evidence doesn’t confirm it but refutes it, you may be asking then why is it “The” theory of our day? Why do people get so emotional when you poke holes into evolution?
Because evolution is what many people hold dear to their hearts, it’s their sacred religion. It’s a convenient escape from the reality of being responsible for our actions here on earth.
“As we studied the natural world we always came up against a barrier that had written upon it, ‘no further exploration by order of Moses.’ Darwin gave us a way around the barrier.”4
Thomas Huxley
When someone concedes that evolution doesn’t hold up, they have to concede that there is another explanation for the universe we see.
And when they concede to that, they have to also concede that, they know deep down, Yahweh created the universe.
And with that, they know deep down because of their conscience that Yahweh has a law, and that they have broken that law.
For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them…
Romans 2:14–15
And if they concede that they have broken God’s eternal law, they also know, in some way, they deserve a punishment or judgement in response.
And instead of facing the reality of God and bowing to him as Lord, unbelievers worship the creation (that God made) to ‘escape’.
because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator…
Romans 1:25
But…There’s Good News
But here’s the good news. If you or someone you know is an atheist who holds to evolution…there is still time to repent.
The problem humans have is that we have all broken God’s law and deserve judgement. God could have just given us this judgement already, and that would have been just.
It wouldn’t be any different than when we see a serial killer get sentenced in court. We cheer.
But…
God didn’t stop there. God sent himself in the form of a man 2,000 years ago. He lived a perfect life, died on a cross, and then rose from the dead.
What does that mean? It means death has been concurred. Even better news? God has promised us that if we trust in Jesus and what he did for us on the cross, and bow to him as Lord, we will be saved from the judgement of Hell that is coming for the ungodly.
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
John 3:16
So, if you haven’t believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, repent (turn in sorrow). You’re not guaranteed tomorrow. The only thing that matters is how you stand before God, because one day, we will all give an account for what we’ve done.
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.
2 Corinthians 5:10