Prosperity in the USA is, remarkably, broadening. American Enterprise Institute (AEI) finds 31% of Americans are now upper middle class, up from 10% in 1979, and its share of income doubled. Also tech job openings have doubled since mid-2023 to a three-year high, quietly refuting the obituaries for software engineering. AEI finds that the “core” middle class has shrunk, but only because more families have become upper-middle class over time. AEI finds that the “core” middle class has shrunk—but so too has the share of Americans with income too low to reach the middle class. The shrinking core middle class is due to a booming upper-middle class. Only the relatively worse-off parts of the middle class have shrunk—and by less than the upper-middle class has grown.
The US jobs report on Friday was surprisingly strong. That’s not the only part of the job market that’s doing better than expected.
My recent post Generative AI is About to Cause Humanity to Fork is one of my most looked at posts. It is about an article by Peter Diamandis of YouTube Metatrends and Moonshots fame. Let me quote the opening paras of his article “Humanity is About to Fork”.
The choices you make in the next five years will determine which branch of the human story you inhabit. Here’s what’s coming, and how to position yourself on the right side of every fork. Peter addresses five major splits that will cleave humanity into groups with dramatically different futures, capabilities, and lifespans: Fork 1. Creators versus Consumers, 2. Fork 2. Longevity Escape Velocity, Fork 3. Brain Computer Interface, Fork 4. Earth versus The Stars, Fork 5. Digital Consciousness (i.e. uploads). Peter then explores the bigger picture and how he intends to face each of these forks. It is a fascinating article. If you have not seen it I suggest you take a look.
Satan has done a devastating job of changing the world’s understanding of the true history of the Cosmos. He has used people like Charles Darwin to convince the world that it did not need a Creator. A Big Bang and Natural Selection is all you need.
When you look at the complex laws that govern the universe and just the complexity of the human body it is difficult to comprehend how scientists cling to the theory of evolution. Fortunately, many scientists like Dr Dean Kenyon, former Professor of Biochemistry at Stanford University and in 1969 was co-author of the book Biochemical Predestination which was adopted in the USA as a graduate textbook and was regarded as the seminal work on the naturalistic formation of living cells from chemicals of the earth. By the 1980’s Kenyon came to the conclusion that intelligent design was needed for life’s beginning. He said the discovery of DNA and the electron microscope rang the death knell of evolution. Why? Because DNA is complex information which cannot be made from matter or energy. Its only source in intelligence of the highest order. Also, the electron microscope revealed that inside every cell there are complex machines to make the chemicals the body needs and transport devices to move them around and they are all controlled by the information on the DNA . There is no way this can evolve by random chance. It is nonsense. Go to http://www.creation.com and http://www.answersingenesis.org for more information on creation versus evolution.
Check out this short video by Dr Dean Kenyon on intelligentdesign.
Why do so many scientists reject creation—and is that rejection rooted in science itself or in something deeper? This conversation explores how assumptions like naturalism shape what people believe about origins, about truth, and even about the nature of science itself. Dr Robert Carter unpacks why believing in a rational Creator actually makes science possible, and how shifting the conversation from ‘facts’ to ‘worldviews’ can open surprising doors for meaningful dialogue. If you have ever struggled to talk about these things with others, this episode is for you.
This is an important video and will help Christians have effective conversations with agnostics and atheists on creation and evolution.
The final nail in the coffin of human evolution by Dr Robert Carter published 03 Jul, 2025
Humans and chimpanzees are NOT 99% identical, like we have been told for the last 40 years. The real differences are 15 times greater than the now-outdated evolutionary guesses.
The first estimates of human-chimpanzee genetic similarity were made in the 1970s. DNA from the two species was mixed and repeatedly heated and cooled in a test tube. By passing light through the tube, the amount of DNA alignment was estimated by how cloudy the solution became at different temperatures. This gave us the first claims of “98 to 99%” identity.1 John Ahlquist, whom we interviewed in Creation magazine, was one of the main researchers on that project. The problem with this method, he realized, is that it only measured the DNA that would align. Huge areas of dissimilar DNA could exist, and they would not have been able to see it.2
Most evolutionists simply accepted the “98 to 99%” figure without question and it has been broadcast across essentially all media platforms ever since. The only serious challenge came from the creationist community,3 with only an occasional admission from the evolutionary side. In one of those, the author acknowledged the “myth of 1%” and said that the real number is much less.4
Everything seemed to go in circles for a long time. Then evolutionary biologist Dr Richard Buggs wrote a blog post in 2018 where he concluded that less than 85% of the human and chimpanzee genome matched letter-for-letter.5 This was based on a paper he was about to publish with one of his newly minted PhDs, Josiah Seaman.6 That paper seemed to indicated a 96.6% similarity, but that occurs only after cutting out the centromeres, telomeres, all copy number variations, about 300,000 small insertions and deletions (accounting for about two million letters in each genome), and an additional percentage of DNA that resisted alignment.24 Yes, humans and chimpanzees do share a lot of DNA, but when you include what they don’t share, the percent identity drops significantly, into the low 80% range.
New study with complete data
All this prior work (by Drs. Ahlquist, Tomkins, Buggs, etc.) was based on incomplete sequencing. We did not have a fully-sequenced human genome until the summer of 2023,7 let alone a high-quality chimpanzee genome. Indeed, the early versions of the chimpanzee genome were even assembled on a scaffold of the human genome, automatically making them look more human-like. However, a major new study has completed each great ape genome to a very high standard.8 Like the newest human genome, they are (nearly) complete, from one end to the other. Older versions had major gaps, had faked centromere data, and were highly problematic around the numerous repetitive regions. These ‘telomere-to-telomere’ versions solved these problems.
The assembly of these genomes was no trivial matter. Even after all that work, they had to develop a filtering protocol that rejected certain DNA variants, and they had to hand-curate multiple sections that did not ‘behave’.
The alignment was even more difficult. They identified 175 inversions larger than 10,000 nucleotides, one chromosome fusion, and one large translocation.9 They also saw 632 inversions that were unique to one species only.
Analyzing the data
The ‘percent difference’ data are reported in Yoo et al.’s supplemental information (figure 1).
Figure 1. The percent difference caused by alignment gaps between human and great apes. Each alignment was divided into 1-million-bp segments and the percent difference caused by gaps in that segment was calculated. The curves represent histogram-like (e.g., count) data, and each curve has been normalized to its maximum value (so that the peaks all have the same height). The mean (average) for each curve is denoted by the short vertical lines, and the values are reported in the column of numbers. The curves are often quite skewed, making an ‘average’ more difficult to see, so the authors also reported the median (middle value, circles). hg002 = human, PanTro3 = chimpanzee, PanPan1= bonobo, GorGor1 = gorilla, PonAbe1 = orangutan.
They did not provide any error bars, just the average for each genome pair. They also broke up the data among the autosomes and the X and Y chromosomes. The blue bulges on the right in figure 1 represent giant gaps in the Y chromosome alignment. The purple bulges on the bottom represent the differences found among the two genome copies within the same individual. I worked up their data to get a complete estimate of divergence between the species (figure 2).
Figure 2. Genome similarity calculations. The data for gap and SNV divergence for the autosomes and X and Y chromosomes were tabulated. The differences were summed and then combined using the proportional lengths of the three chromosome types in the different species. The human-to-ape and the reverse calculations are not identical due to the presence or absence (depending on which way you are looking) of many alignment gaps.
From that, it was possible to generate a bar chart that showed the within- and among-species differences (figure 3).
Figure 3. Final data summary. Orange: within-species difference. Dark blue: human to ape. Light blue: ape to human.
99%? Not even close!
This is a big deal. First, many commentators have claimed this proves that the human and chimpanzee genomes are only about 85% identical.10,11,12 They are spot on, but you would not know that from the major headlines. Nor can you easily find the information in the published paper. Instead, you must drill down into more than 100 pages of detailed supplementary information to find the relevant information.
Second, creationist researchers like Dr Jeffrey Tomkins have been vindicated. While the earlier studies were stymied by a lack of trustable sequence data, the newest genomes show how different we are from all apes.
However, third, there are vast stretches of sequence that are nearly identical between humans and chimpanzees. At random, I found one that stretched for several hundred thousand bases and was nearly 99% identical.13Our opponents will misdirect and obfuscate to their dying breath.
Fourth, our opponents will misdirect and obfuscate to their dying breath. Case in point, in a recent video a commentator named Gutsick Gibbon claimed that I agree with her about human-chimpanzee similarity.14 No, while I agree with her that Tomkins is human and made mistakes (I have also pointed out glaring mistakes in her work and several errors in my work as well15), I do not agree with her that humans and chimpanzees are highly similar.
Fifth, God could have created us 99.9999% identical to chimps, or he could have made us 50% identical, or even less. The biblical creation model makes no prior claim on this. We should expect a high similarity because of the obvious structural, behavioural, physiological, and nutritional similarities between us. But how much? Nobody can know! Note that the evolutionary community was also unable to come up with an estimate before the numbers were run. They have no prior commitment to which ape species would be more like us. The debate about which species was more genetically like us lasted until the 1980s. Many people wanted orangutans to win and resisted the notion that chimps were our evolutionary cousins. Some paleontologists were arguing for the primacy of orangutans as late as 2009, although by that point they were a very small minority.16
The four numbers
Finally, there are four things that we need to know:
What is the percent similarity among the parts that align?
What is the percent similarity when you include the parts that don’t?
How many mutations must have occurred over evolutionary time to account for these differences?
How long would it take to functionally integrate new mutations into the genome?
The answer to the first question is now known: about 98%. The answer to the second question is also now known: about 85%. That third question is now where the debate should be, and the fourth question might be the biggest Achilles’ heel of all for evolutionary theorists.
The evolutionary model here is unlike ours in that it is ‘one-tailed’. They will gladly accept high similarity levels, but there is a cliff on the other side of the argument. If we are too dissimilar, they cannot explain the differences in their 6.5 million years. They do have the ability to back up the time to the most recent common ancestor, but even that ability is limited. A few years ago, some scientists were arguing for 13 million years.17 Some wanted to push the time even further back, but the paleontologists would have none of that because that would necessitate putting early apes in with the dinosaurs. They are stuck. The difference must be low. Period.
How much ‘difference’ can they explain?
Given an evolutionary conveyor belt of new mutations entering in, old mutations being removed by selection and drift, and really old mutations going to ‘fixation’ (i.e., 100%), they expect the mutation rate to approximate the fixation rate.
Here’s how the calculations work out:
Given a haploid mutation rate μ, the number of new mutations per generation is simply 2Nμ, where N is the population size.18
For a new neutral mutation, the probability of fixation is proportional to its frequency in the population. Since there are 2N copies of the genome in the population, and since, by definition, a new mutation starts in one copy of one chromosome, the frequency of that mutation is 1/(2N).19 The rate of fixation (r) would be proportional to the number of mutations that appear (2Nμ).
Thus, r= 2Nμ / 2N = μ
If the mutation rate is 100 per individual per generation, that equates to 50 mutations per haploid genome per generation.20 They would thus expect the human genome to accumulate 50 fixed differences per generation.21 Over 6.5 million years (~300,000 generations), they would expect 15 million differences between each species and our common ancestor, or about 30 million differences between us and them today.
30 million differences / 3 billion letters = 1%
THIS is why they have been quoting that 1% figure all these years, and this is why they have been resisting anything else. If the number is much greater, things do not work out in their favor. When the difference grows past that level, their models break down. It is simply too hard to explain so many differences, even in their ‘millions of years’ mindset.
But even a 15% difference could still be explained if large insertions and deletions cause sudden changes. Consider that the chimp Y chromosome is only half as long as the human Y. Does that amount to 30 million differences, or one? For example, if a single deletion erased the heterochromatic arm of the chimp Y chromosome, a 0.5% difference between our two genomes would instantly appear. What other large changes could be effected by such things?
Yet, we are not talking about changes in ‘junk DNA’. Multiple functional genes are in the unaligned regions. Even though about 99% of human genes are found in the other species, Yoo et al. found 185 gene families unique to humans and from around 1,400 to 2,000 gene copy-number differences among the species.22 True, many of the duplicated areas deal with highly repetitive, non-coding DNA, but these areas have increasingly proved to be functional, as we and others have pointed out many times.23 There are also fully-functional genes in these areas, specifically ones that deal with brain function.24 About 55% of each genome, on average, is composed of repetitive elements (LINEs, SINEs, LTRs, etc.).25 These, too, are proving to have functions, so they cannot be ignored in any comparison.
Given many millions of point mutations and tens of thousands of insertions, deletions, inversions, and duplications, can they explain this in an evolutionary context? They can explain some in their models, but those models are often quite simplistic (like the equations above). Random mating is a critical assumption, but it is never true, and non-random mating only slows down how fast new variants spread. There are also questions about population growth and how it affects all calculations. Given that the human population has been expanding (since the Flood or since the invention of agriculture, take your pick), ZERO genetic variants have become fixed in the human genome for the last 10,000 years in the evolutionary timeline. How does ‘no evolution for 10,000 years’ affect the evolutionary forecast?The ‘fact’ that they have been trumpeting from the rooftops since the 1970s turns out to be no fact at all. The real difference is NOT 1%. No, it is 15x greater.
But the fourth question above is perhaps the most fundamentally important question in evolution. Why? Because evolution needs new genes to arise and activate. Humans and chimpanzees do not just differ at the nucleotide level. Our genes are not used in the same ways and our brains have very different wiring pathways. Those changes would not just have to arise. No, they would have to arise, spread out and replace whatever original gene was in that place, and then integrate themselves into the already complex regulatory processes that exist.
This is a massive problem, even for the “1%” crowd. Now that we know the human and chimpanzee genomes are more than 10 times more different than they thought, the problem of evolution only becomes that much more difficult. This is one of the greatest scientific discoveries that supports the biblical creation model. It does not mean, however, that evolutionists will never be able to explain what we see. It does mean, though, that they will be scrambling for cover. The ‘fact’ that they have been trumpeting from the rooftops since the 1970s turns out to be no fact at all. The real difference is NOT 1%. No, it is 15x greater.
Cohen, J., Relative differences: the myth of 1%, Science316(5833):1836, 2007. Return to text.
Buggs, R., How similar are human and chimpanzee genomes?, richardbuggs.com, 14 Jul 2018. Return to text.
Seaman, J. and Buggs, R., FluentDNA: nucleotide visualization of whole genomes, annotations, and alignments, Frontiers in Genetics 11:292, 2020. Return to text.
Rhie, A. et al., The complete sequence of a human Y chromosome, Nature621(7978):344–354, 2023. Return to text.
Yoo, D. et al., Complete sequencing of ape genomes, Nature641(8062):401–418, 2025. Return to text.
Yoo et al., ref. 7, supplementary information, p. 101. Return to text.
Luskin, C, Letter to the Smithsonian: Correct your signage on human-chimp genetic similarity!, evolutionnews.org, 27 May 2025. Return to text.
Buggs, R., How much of a human genome is identical to a chimpanzee genome?, richardbuggs.com, 6 May 2025. Return to text.
Tomkins, J.P., Chimp genome markedly different from human, icr.org, 29 May 2025. Return to text.
Gutsick Gibbon, I killed this creationist argument, youtube.com, 28 May 2025. Return to text.
Carter, R., James 3 vs. the anticreationists, biblicalgenetics.com, 16 Jan 2024; youtube.com/watch?v=FIY7FTTFZyg. Return to text.
Grehan, J.R. and Schwartz, J.H., Evolution of the second orangutan: phylogeny and biogeography of hominid origins, J. Biogeogr.36(10):1823–1844, 2009. Return to text.
Venn, O. et al., Strong male bias drives germline mutation in chimpanzees, Science344(6189):1272–1275, 2014. Return to text.
The formula includes a “2” because the genome is diploid. The mutation rate is usually given as the haploid mutation rate, for historical reasons. Return to text.
Again, a 2 is in the denominator because there are two copies of the genome per individual in diploid species. Return to text.
The classic neutral theory formula r = μ applies when μ is the per-site mutation rate. When Kimura derived this result, he was showing that at any given nucleotide position, the rate of neutral substitution equals the mutation rate at that site. However, when one multiplies both sides of r = μ by the genome size, the exact same number is reached, especially since we started with the per-haploid genome mutation rate (i.e., the sum of the per-site mutation rates * number of sites). Thus, the relationship r = μ scales directly. I applied the principle at the genome level rather than the per-site level because the question was about the rate of fixation across a species. Return to text.
Given random mating, which never happens, and a stationary population size, which is clearly not true for humans. Without these assumptions the evolutionary model cannot deliver even a 1% difference. Return to text.
Yoo et al., ref. 7, supplementary information pp. 66–67. Return to text.
Yes, we come from the union of a man and a woman. But ultimately, our conception is the miraculous work of the Father of creation — a Spirit-breathed moment in time, a flash of divine light, a miracle.
While ancestry databases have made it easier to trace our heritage, I wonder whether what people discover reflects their true search or deeper longing.
Somewhere along the way, the Church has lost sight of our marvellous, divine origin as spiritual beings created by God.
In Acts, Paul emphasises to the secular Athenians that their existence is deeply connected to their origin in Father God. We were all created in him, and as the Aramaic translation suggests, so that humanity might “investigate him through his creation”.
“And He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet He is actually not far from each one of us, for “‘In Him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your own poets have said, “‘For we are indeed His offspring.’ Acts 17:26-28
It is worth encouraging one another to renew our minds in the truth, allowing God’s Word to shape our understanding of both our identity and our past. Let’s look at other verses that reveal the work of the Spirit of God: Psalm 104:30– “You send forth your Spirit, and they are created.”Job 33:4 – “The Spirit of God has made me.”Psalm 139:5–6– “From the beginning to the end, you have formed me and set your hand upon me. The knowledge and wonder are stronger than I and I could not master them.”
In personal investigation of this, any current anxieties about worthiness and un-wantedness would begin to fade in seeing the intentional work of the Spirit to give each of us life. The wounds and pains of the past would gradually diminish when we grapple with and grasp the depth of the Everlasting Father’s (Isaiah 9:6) love — abiding, perpetual, and unwavering.
By sharing this simple but profound truth about life and purpose, we can offer hope and healing to anyone who is seeking their true genesis. Never forgetting that the love of God may seem foolish to one, but to another it is the very power of God.
Look what AI (chat GPT) says about discovering our divine identity. I am impressed and will use it more in my study of God’s Word. Let me know about your experience. I will address it more in future posts.
CHAT GPT: Discovering our divine identity in Scripture is less about finding a label and more about learning who God says we are—and living from that truth. The Bible unfolds this identity gradually, relationally, and always in the context of God’s love and purpose. Here’s a clear, Scripture-rooted pathway.
1. Start with God’s Design: Created in His Image
Key texts:Genesis 1:26–27; Psalm 139:13–16
Scripture begins by telling us who we are before we do anything:
You are created intentionally, not accidentally
You bear the image of God (imago Dei), which gives every human dignity, worth, and purpose
Our divine identity is grounded in who God is, not in our performance or circumstances.
2. Understand the Problem: Identity Distorted by Sin
Key texts:Genesis 3; Romans 3:23; Isaiah 53:6
Sin doesn’t erase God’s image in us, but it fractures our understanding of it. We begin to define ourselves by:
Shame
Fear
Achievement
Failure
Scripture is honest about this distortion so we don’t build our identity on illusions.
God reveals who you are as you walk with Him, not all at once.
In short
Your divine identity in Scripture is this:
Created in God’s image
Redeemed in Christ
Adopted as God’s child
Empowered by the Spirit
Called to reflect God’s glory
If you want, I can also:
Walk through specific identity statements (e.g., “in Christ” passages)
Help you study this theme devotionally
Explore how this applies during seasons of doubt, suffering, or transition
Just tell me where you’d like to go next 🌿
By messaging ChatGPT, an AI chatbot, you agree to our Terms and have read our Privacy Policy. Don’t share sensitive info. Chats may be reviewed and used to train our models. Learn more
In this in-depth interview, Dr. Bill Barrick—Professor Emeritus of Old Testament and Hebrew at The Master’s Seminary — unpacks what the Hebrew text of Genesis 1 really says. Does the Bible itself teach a young earth? Is the day-age theory compatible with the Hebrew grammar? What about the Gap Theory, mytho-history, and functional creation views made popular by scholars like William Lane Craig, Michael Heiser, and John Walton? We dig deep into the Hebrew of בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים (“In the beginning God created”), explore whether Genesis 1:1 is a heading or a historical statement, and discuss how the text itself answers questions about the firmament, cosmology, and biblical authority.
00:00 Intro 02:08 Discussion on Young Earth Creationism 09:01 Old Earth Creationism and Personal Journey 12:09 Day-Age Theory and Hebrew Grammar 22:05 Gap Theory Examined 32:21 William Lane Craig and Mytho history? 37:05 Poetry vs. Historical Narrative 41:38 Analysing Genesis 1:1-3 57:11 Primitive Cosmology and Metaphors 01:04:42 The Light Before the Sun
C.S. Lewis once put it, “Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator.” Christianity is a science-starter. God made us in His image to create as He creates.
The creation/evolution debate has continued unabated for a century. The US and, indeed, the world remain highly divided on the question of origins. The good news is that latest scientific discoveries like the electron microscope that revealed in even the simplest cells complex machinery and transport devices and then the discovery of DNA which is complex information that controls the complex machinery and transport devices in every cell. There is no way this could have evolved and the only source of complex information is intelligence of the highest order. The God who exists outside of the complex universe He created.
There is no mechanism to explain evolution, from “GOO to YOU”. Darwin’s natural selection won’t do it. It only selects from what is already there. The only other proposed mechanism – mutations, also won’t do it. Mutation loses information it does not add information. Moreover order does not come from chaos. God exists and even more important He loves us.
Powerful evidence that our nearest heavenly neighbours refute evolution and declare God’s glory.
Did you know that our moon should not exist, according to the evolutionary model? And neither should Jupiter? Or Saturn? Or Neptune?
Did you know that there are numerous signs of youth in our solar system—from the rings of Saturn, to the atmosphere of Pluto, to the extreme volcanism of Io (one of Jupiter’s moons), to the very existence of comets?
Our Amazing Created Solar System is a superb book that contains all this, and so much more. It will take you on a fascinating, guided tour of the solar system, showing how, time and again, the evolutionary model contradicts reality, while the biblical account of ‘recent’ creation fits perfectly. With newly updated information and illustrations, this book presents overwhelming evidence that our solar system is young, and that it was designed—especially for life on Earth.
This is another great resource from Creation Ministries International (CMI) http://www.creation.com.
Some things should make Christians angry. In this powerful presentation, Ken Ham challenges believers to reclaim righteous anger, stand firm on the authority of Scripture, and boldly confront the lies of modern culture. Genesis 1 to 11 provides the foundation of the true history of this world and answers to the most troubling questions humans can raise, such as why there is death and suffering in the world.
God has raised up two ministries to cope with Satan’s most successful strategy (evolution), so make sure you connect with and support Answers in Genesis, http://www.answersingenesis.org and Creation Ministries International, http://www.creation.com.
Extreme cruelty, gross injustice, and disregard for the life of individuals characterise regimes that believe life is an accident. Examples include Hitler’s National Socialism, Stalin’s Soviet Socialism, and their nauseatingly numerous socialist offspring. Many socialists mistakenly believe that science can show that life evolved by accident.
Sadly, universities and schools teach our children that evolution is fact and that this cosmos came about by a Big Bang and random chance evolution. As a result, lavishly funded TV spectaculars portray the evolution of life as “scientific”, but it is not. It cannot be subjected to the scientific method as its assumed processes are not observable. Darwin insisted his theory could not explain the origin of life but claimed it did explain the lesser problem of how species could have become increasingly complex. Since Darwin’s time, however, the expected mass of transitions to more and more complex species has been absent from the fossil record. More importantly, Dr Michael Behe recently discovered organelles driving the flagellum of a bacterium that meet Darwin’s own criteria for falsifying his theory. Mainstream media has hardly mentioned this, and the educational establishment has ignored it because they will not consider the supernatural. Regardless of the evidence, if it is not natural/materialistic, it is not science.
Fake news also disparages those who accept the scientific evidence for intelligent design of life. Yet they include science luminary Sir Fred Hoyle and Dr Paul Davies who discovered the fine tuning of the universe, renowned microbiologist Dr Dean Kenyon who renounced his celebrated evolutionary work “Biochemical Predestination” to accept intelligent design, Dr Michael Behe who wrote the landmark work “Darwin’s Black Box”, notorious Oxford Professor Anthony Flew who renounced atheism in his book “There is a God”, the brilliant Oxford mathematician Professor John Lennox, mathematician Dr William Dembski who authored “The Design Inference”, and information scientists Dr Lee Spetner and Dr Michael Hasofar who were the first to publish quantified evidence against evolution of species in the world’s leading peer-reviewed “Journal of Theoretical Biology”.
Evolution has been our enemy, Satan’s best strategy, but he realises that its time is over, and he already has his final strategy in place: Aliens. Richard Dawkins, one of the atheists’ most celebrated authors, when argued into a corner on intelligent design, blurted out, “Well, if it’s intelligent design, it must have come from outer space.” Demons are already representing themselves to gullible people as aliens, as good guys, come to save us. These stories are coming to us from people who have experience with UFOs. According to an ABC News poll conducted in 2000, “nearly half of all Americans and millions more globally believe we’re not alone […] 40 million Americans say they have seen or know someone who has seen an unidentified flying object, or UFO,
Look at the many movies and games that feature aliens. Young people are being set up to embrace demons when they manifest as good aliens.
In Gary Bates’s book on Aliens, he provides evidence that these creatures posing as aliens are, in fact, demons. Whenever a person commanded them to go in the name of Jesus, they immediately departed.
Are you ready for all that will proceed Jesus’s return to restore righteousness? The bible gives us a lot of information on the last seven years before Jesus returns to defeat the Antichrist at the battle of Armageddon. If you are new to this blog, then you can go back over previous posts to find out where we are at in terms of Biblical end times prophecy.
Many critics of the Christian faith have no interest whatsoever in an open-minded exploration of God’s grace. They simply take great satisfaction in annoying believers, because our witness and commitment to the Good News disturbs the natural person. Their aim is thus to eradicate that conviction by pressuring believers to change their minds and accept an impotent version that will alleviate conviction. To some degree, it’s working. Progressive Christianity is a product of cultural compromise, particularly accepting evolution, which relegates God’s Word to myth and fables and the Christian faith to a mere option of self-help. They no longer believe that Jesus is the divine Son of God but just a moral example for us to follow.
A Christian’s journey towards victorious faith must now overcome the mirage of mind games played in culture. It’s necessary for those who know “on whom (they) have believed and (are) convinced that He is able to guard what has been entrusted” (2 Tim. 1:12) to realise what they have with God’s inerrant Word. Our message is “sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit… and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Heb. 4:12). The Christian has the powerful message of grace that by the Spirit is convicting “the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment” (John 16:8). Pushbacks at every level are reactions to the convicting nature of this spiritual dynamic.
The message of God’s grace and repentance in Jesus is an all or nothing proposition that provokes backlash and antagonism. “If the world hates you,” said Jesus, “know that it hated me before it hated you” (John 15:18). That is part of why Christians are to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matt. 5:44). Believers who represent the message of grace and repentance often become the target of a natural person’s frustrations and rebellion against God.
There are definitely times when honest and fair questions require answers. Conversations should be welcomed, particularly on evolution, as many resources are available from http://www.creation.com and http://www.answersingenesis.org to support creation versus evolution. The Lord Jesus was right that love and mercy should be hallmarks of Christian reaction. Nevertheless, Christians should begin to take our trust in God’s grace much more seriously and realise that cultural scepticism is built on “sinking sand” by flawed human beings.
LIVING ETERNAL NOW 