Tuesday, January 26, 2016

YAHWEH vs allah


A representative of CAIR claims Yahweh is the same God as allah......is this so?
Article follows my comments.........

 Our muslim "friend" is in error...The god of islam is allah..the god of the moon...chosen by muhammed..... the false prophet that Jesus warned about. Claiming allah is a translation of God is "taqiyya."  The God of "real" Christianity and Judaism is Yahweh represented in the four letters YHWH and  is translated  I AM.  (allah DOES NOT MEAN I AM)  Yahweh is  the REAL God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Israel) .....He is the SPIRIT OF LOVE, COMPASSION, FORGIVENESS ETC....He is NOT an anthropomorphic "superbeing" as in most other human religions including islam and Mormonism. Sadly...many alleged Christian denominations also think of God as a "superbeing."  Frankly...I believe this borders on blasphemy because God is Spirit and we are commanded to worship God IN SPIRIT AND TRUTH.

The "key" to understanding YHWH was revealed in Yeshua ben Joseph (Jesus the Christ) 2000 years and the following New Testament Scriptures verify what Jesus actually taught....... Genesis 1:26, Psalm 82:3-6, John 14:8-23, Galatians 3:26-28, Colossians 1:27, 2:9-10, 1 Corinthians:3:16-17, 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, 1 John 4:11-16.  These Scriptures make it clear that God dwells within and works through His Creation and His PERFECT Laws and is NOT external to Creation but IS CREATION. God is NOT a man (super or anything else)  that He should lie. (Numbers 23:19)  143 years ago French Chemist Louis Pasteur performed a simple "S" shaped flask  experiment that revealed the reality of the Eternal God of Eternal Creation by disproving "spontaneous" generation and PROVING that "ALL Life MUST come from pre-existing Life"...God's PERFECT Law of Biogenesis.  "As a single living cell carries on ALL life activities of the multicellular organism..."creating" the "BODY of the ORGANISM.....so is the "individual life" (a living being) a "cell" of the "BODY" of GOD."  (1 Corinthians 12:12-30)


             "The Heavens declare the glory of God"  Psalm 19:1-6

In Christ...David Brown

ImageAccording to Nihad Awad of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Muslims worship the same god as followers of the world’s other two major religions. In an essay written to support a Wheaton College professor who was fired after making similar claims, Awad said, “From an Islamic perspective, there is only one deity worshiped by Muslims, Christians, and Jews.
“In fact,” Awad continued, “the Muslim declaration of faith (shahada) states: ‘There is no god but God.’”
Awad went on to wave away any differences between Allah and God as linguistic in nature. “‘Allah’ is merely the Arabic translation for ‘God,’” he wrote. “All Arabic-speaking Christians refer to ‘Allah’ in their prayers.”
Awad and CAIR are defending Larycia Hawkins, a political science professor who took it upon herself to make waves at Wheaton, an evangelical Christian school. She was fired after making a Facebook post in December saying, “I stand in religious solidarity with Muslims because they, like me, a Christian, are people of the book. And as Pope Francis stated last week, we worship the same God.”
Now, you’re going to get a lot of people who say, What difference does it make? Isn’t it better for us to get along?
ImageImageWell, getting along is just fine and dandy. Nothing wrong with that at all. But if we can only do that by pretending that lies are true, then this proposed truce is built on one damn shaky foundation. There are plenty of things we could just accept as truth in the interests of getting along: Abortion is a woman’s right, police officers are racist bullies, illegal immigrants have just as much right to be here as anyone else. But when you have values, beliefs, and common sense, you can’t just sacrifice your intelligence on the altar of team spirit.
So it is here. If you want to believe that the Allah of Islam and the God of Christianity are only separated by vocabulary, go out and sing it from the highest mountaintop. Sign your emails with it. Take out an ad in the paper. But no matter how aggressively you promote this fiction, it won’t magically morph into fact.
“In blasphemy indeed are those who say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary,” says the Quran.
That’s the whole ballgame. Without falling into a No True Scotsman fallacy, it’s safe to say that you cannot be a Christian without believing in the deity of Jesus Christ. That’s pretty much fundamental. And a Christian college has every right to expect that their professors will not engage in theological nonsense when representing the school.







Monday, January 18, 2016

MACROEVOLUTION...."MAN DID NOT EVOLVE FROM APES!"

"MAN DID NOT EVOLVE FROM APES!"

The article I comment on follows after my comments........


It is obvious that microevolution occurs as evidenced in the creation of antibiotic resistant pathogens from the over use of antibiotics in the health care industry. However....assuming the same process occurs at the macro level is a "quantum stretch in reality" because the new genetic codes necessary for the evolution of major plant and animal phyla is enormous and because 99% of new codes in DNA mutations, the ONLY source of natural new codes, are "lethal" and less than 1% of any possible positive mutations occur in germ tissue, the only ones passed on for natural selection to act on, there simply was no where near enough time on this planet for macroevolution to produce all "codes" necessary for the creation of the major phyla of plants and animals. The ONLY other possible explanation for the phylogenetic diversity of life on this planet including the creation of man is by "Intelligent Design."

Creationist Fundamental Christianity has "Intelligent Design" correct as the mechanism of the creation of the vast diversity of life on the planet but because they do not "know" the God revealed in the "flesh" in the Incarnation of Yeshua ben Joseph (Jesus the Christ) they have embraced an illusionary mechanism for "Intelligent Design" which man calls the "supernatural." God is PERFECT therefore His Laws are PERFECT and the man created concept of the "supernatural" would imply a violation or suspension of those laws...a non-sequitur.

Ironically, Science has discovered the PERFECT Laws of the creation of the great diversity of life but because they reject the true God and His word in the Bible...they do not realize that the diversity of life on this planet was created by God by "Intelligent Design" via Recombinant DNA and "gene editing." (CRISPR....Clustered regularly-interspaced short palindromic repeats)

Sadly, because Creationists fear that Science is incompatible with God's WORD...they embrace the illogic of the "supernatural" which has unfortunately caused many to reject the Truth that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God and is verified by Scientific discovery and therefore, Creationists also do not realize Science has discovered "how God created" the various plant and animal phyla on Earth.

The "key" to understanding the True God revealed by Jesus Christ and the "true mechanism of Intelligent Design" is found in the following Scriptures that reveal that God dwells within and works through His Creation and His PERFECT Laws....... Genesis1:26, Psalm 82:3-6, John 14:8-23, Galatians 3:26-28, Colossians 1:27, 2:9-10, 1 Corinthians:3:16-17, 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, 1 John 4:11-16......study these Scriptures in a spirit of humility and prayer.

In Christ.....David Brown



Additional note to previous post........It's not that the Bible is "fantasy" as many scientists believe ..it's the "fundamental interpretation" of it by Creationists that causes the confusion AND illusions.









New Evidence Leaves Macroevolution Dangling

BY ARTHUR CHADWICK and LEONARD BRAND

As scientists who accept the literal intent of the Genesis account of origins, we have faced many challenges to our faith during our undergraduate and graduate education, and later on as professional scientists. Sometimes these challenges left us shaken, puzzled, or otherwise uncertain about what to do with some particular piece of information. Often we were driven back to our knees and to God’s Word for reassurance that we were moving in the right direction. Always we were directed to analyze more carefully the data from which the challenge had been derived.

One of the major challenges has been the question of macroevolution. The theory of macroevolution asserts that the first living cells, and all types of life, are the result of nondirected, naturalistic processes without the intervention of an outside agency (God). This theory became dominant in the nineteenth century, when scientists knew nothing about the complexity of living cells. It might have been easy to believe a cell could have arisen spontaneously when it was viewed as little more than a fluid-filled sac.

Enter DNA

As we learned more of cellular complexity, including DNA, in the twentieth century, naturalistic scientists had no choice but to believe that this amazing system of molecules that undergirds all life originated by accident. What other theory was there? Certainly they could not accept the idea of a Creator, since their naturalistic assumptions prohibited this possibility. Now in the twenty-first century, three crucial discoveries have undermined the foundation on which the evolutionary origin of life forms seemed to be resting.

Discovery 1: The Human Genome Project

The Two Percent. In 1990 the Human Genome Project began as a massively funded effort by a large contingent of scientists to determine the entire information sequence of human DNA. Scientists discovered, much to their perplexity, that only a tiny fraction (about 2 percent, about 20,000 genes) of human DNA coded for proteins (contained instructions for making a specific protein), yet it was known that nearly 100,000 different proteins were made in human cells. That discrepancy demanded an explanation, and the explanation was stunning. It turned out that those portions of DNA that coded for an amino acid sequence in a protein (exons) could be combined in various ways to make different proteins. This explained how only 2 percent of our DNA could make so many proteins.

It became evident that there would have to be another level of control to determine which exons to stitch together, in which order to make the appropriate protein. Then there would have to be an additional level of control to regulate that, and so on. This multilevel DNA management system was completely beyond anything that had previously been visualized for the complexity of the genetic system.

The Ninety-eight Percent. What was the other 98 percent of the DNA doing? Evolutionary biologists had long ago decided the DNA that was not coding directly for proteins must be “Junk DNA.” This nonfunctional DNA, they declared, was being modified by random mutations to produce new genes that, when functional, would become part of the organism’s genome. By this process, over time, an amphibian could become a reptile, a reptile could become a mammal, and a mammal could become a human. In fact, “Junk DNA” quickly became a strong argument for evolution among biologists.

But trouble was on the way. A new massive, federally funded initiative, called the ENCODE project, was launched to find out what the 98 percent of the DNA that was not coding for proteins was doing. In September 2012 the project simultaneously published a series of papers on the results of their work.1 The consortium announced that at least 80 percent, and probably a lot more of the human DNA that had been thought of as “junk,” was functional DNA. It is not only functional, but also critically important.

Much of this 98 percent of the DNA that did not code directly for proteins was regulating the protein production system; it was part of the multifunctional control of the genetic system. Evolutionists were quick to condemn the report, in spite of the fact that more than 400 of the top molecular biologists in the world had been working on the project. But the results have held up scientifically and are now widely accepted.

The protein-coding genes, 2 percent of the DNA,2 are very similar in all animals. We share 70 percent of our protein coding genes (70 percent of 2 percent) with an acorn worm, 92 percent with a mouse, and up to 96 percent with a chimpanzee. The rest of the DNA (98 percent), clearly, is what makes a human different from an acorn worm, a mouse, or a chimpanzee. This was a huge blow to the theory of evolution, but was long ago predicted by creationists, who recognized that a designer was not likely to burden the cell with junk.

Imagine you go into a well-organized machine shop and observe how it functions. It has hundreds or thousands of drawers along the walls. In each drawer are tools or parts necessary for construction of anything that a machine shop can make. One drawer might have a particular size of drill bit; other drawers may contain specific sizes of machine bolts or washers or nuts. Each drawer has something unique but essential for the construction of a product. Not all products will require the use of all drawers.

These drawers represent the protein coding genes. They are important, even essential, but they cannot produce a thing without the machinist and the blueprint. When the machinist is given a blueprint, he gathers the necessary parts, turns on the needed machines, and, with the skill borne of experience and years, creates the required product. Without the machinist and the blueprint, the machine shop could not produce anything, ever. The machinist and the blueprint represent the regulatory DNA that makes up the majority of the genome. Evolution has no evidence to explain how that genetic system originated. But that’s just the beginning of problems for naturalistic explanations; there is more.

Discovery 2: Epigenetics

Until a few years ago, biology dogma was that genes controlled everything, and that it was genes that determine who one is and what one could become. Now that has changed. For generations students of science have been indoctrinated to believe inheritance from outside of DNA (also known as Lamarckism) would be an absurdity: an example would be a giraffe acquiring a long neck because its ancestors kept reaching for higher leaves in the trees. However, beginning about two decades ago, scientists began to recognize another level of control that turned portions of DNA on or off, without changing the information in the DNA.

These epigenetic modifications, from outside of DNA, affected an animal’s anatomy, function, and even behavior.3 In 2014, scientists studying behavior in mice were able to show convincingly that when a mouse learned an aversion to a specific pleasant odor (animals were shocked when the odor was presented), this aversion could be passed on through three or four generations of offspring. The title of the editorial comments in the scientific journal Nature voices the thought that will occur to any Bible reader: “Epigenetics: The Sins of the Fathers.”4

In the example of the mice and in other epigenetic effects the hereditary outcome is not the result of any mutations or other change in the DNA. The epigenetic chemical changes are passed to future offspring as long as they are needed, and the changes may be reversed in future generations. For example, a parent’s diet, behavior, or stress level during pregnancy can affect their offspring without any DNA mutations, and these changes can be passed on to subsequent generations.

Epigenetics presents a dramatic challenge to evolution. Evolution requires all new genetic information to arise by random changes. Without a Creator, the genetic process cannot know in advance what the animal will need. But epigenetics allows the environment to induce changes that will be beneficial, without the help of natural selection. What kinds of control mechanisms and design are involved in developing a system so sophisticated that it can pass on behavioral information that persists, without a change in genes? This is a serious difficulty for evolutionary theory as it has been taught for 100 years. But there were more challenges to come for evolution.

Discovery 3: Orphan Genes

Orphan gene” was coined to designate protein-coding regions (that is, genes) in an animal that were not found in any related animal type, or maybe not in any other species. In other words, there were no similar “ancestral genes” the orphan gene could have evolved from. It is just there, doing a task unique to that animal, like allowing a honeybee to make honey.5 It looks like the animal was designed with that gene because that specific animal needs it. Orphan genes are pervasive in all life forms and pose a critical, perhaps even fatal, obstacle to those seeking to explain the origin of life forms by the evolutionary process.

With continued research the total number of orphan genes identified and recognized has continued to increase, and at present may be as high as 10 to 30 percent of all known genes. More than 1,000 orphan genes are recognized in humans. At least some of these orphan genes are very important; one of them is responsible for the large brain in humans.6

An explanation consistent with the evidence is that the genes were part of the original creation, and their existence in the individual taxa is because of original design. Perhaps some of these orphan genes could be genes that became activated because of altered environmental conditions on the earth after the entrance of sin (epigenetics). In any case, they represent a sobering challenge to the theory of naturalistic evolution.

A Better Explanation

Evolutionary theory claims that new and different types of organisms, such as fish, reptiles, and mammals, originated without a Creator. This theory is now facing serious challenges because of the sophisticated mechanisms of molecular biology that have been unveiled during the past half century. Evolution theory remains alive because it is on artificial “life support,” in the form of philosophical commitment to naturalism, with its assumption that life did not have a Creator. Three recent discoveries, epigenetics, the ENCODE project results, and orphan genes, have further undercut the intellectual feasibility of “life support” for macroevolutionary theory. For many individuals, naturalism and macroevolution are still the only acceptable explanation for life, but this commitment is based increasingly on philosophy, not on adequate evidence. We hope to convince the adherents of evolution that there is a better and viable alternative that not only has explanatory value in science, but holds the promise of eternal life to those who accept it.



  1. 1.      ENCODE. Thirty papers published at the same time in scientific journals, including eight articles and reports in Nature 489 (Sept. 6, 2013): 45-113. See also N. Carey, Junk DNA: A Journey Through the Dark Matter of the Genome (New York: Columbia University Press, 2015).
  2. 2.      J. Cohen, “Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%,” Science 316 (June 29, 2007): 1836.
  3. 3.      B. G. Dias and K. J. Ressler, “Parental Olfactory Experience Influences Behavior and Neural Structure in Subsequent Generations,” Nature Neuroscience 17 (2014): 89-96. Cf. D. Noble, “Physiology Is Rocking the Foundations of Evolutionary Biology,” Experimental Physiology 98 (2014): 1235-1243. Doi: 10.1113/expphysiol.2012.071134.
  4. 4.      V. Hughes, “Epigenetics: The Sins of the Fathers,” Nature 507 (Mar. 6, 2014):22-24.
  5. 5.      B. R. Herb, F. Wolschin, K. D. Hansen, M. J. Aryee, B. Langmead, R. Irizarry, G. V. Amdam, and A. P. Feinberg, “Reversible Switching Between Epigenetic States in Honeybee Behavioral Subcastes,” Nature Neuroscience 15, no. 10 (2012): 1371-1373. Cf. W. C. Jasper, T. A. Linksvayer, J. Atallah, D. Friedman, J. C. Chin, and B. R. Johnson, “Large-scale Coding Sequence Change Underlies the Evolution of Postdevelopmental Novelty in Honeybees,” Molecular Biology and Evolution 32, no. 2 (2015): 334-346.
  6. 6.      M. Florio, M. Albert, E. Taverna, T. Namba, H. Brandl, E. Lewitus, and W. B. Huttner, “Human-specific Gene ARHGAP11B Promotes Basal Progenitor Amplification and Neocortex Expansion,” Science 347, no. 6229 (2015): 1465-1470.

    Arthur Chadwick, Ph.D., is research professor in the Biology and Geology Department at Southwestern Adventist University, Texas. Leonard Brand, Ph.D., is professor of biology and paleontology at Loma Linda University, California.