Happy New Year!  I haven’t written anything in a while.  I’m slowly deconstructing and reconstructing the site which is the main reason.  But it’s not the only reason.

It’s a new year and time for new perspectives.  I may have told you that I was an atheist from ages 18 through 39.  So I fully understand why people dislike “religion” and also dislike anything that does not walk lock step with the idea of evolution.  That used to be my perspective as well.

I talk a great deal about Jesus Christ.  I spent over half my life believing that Jesus and “religion” were one and the same.  My perspective was faulty.



I’ll bet that a lot of you hate “religion”.  So do I.  “Religion” is a series of rituals and liturgies.  Webster defines “liturgy” as “prescribed ritual for public worship”.

Do you know who else hates “religion”?  Jesus does.

You may find that odd.  You may not even believe me.

So I’m going to relate two stories found in scripture.  Interestingly they are written back to back and represent the entirety of John chapter 2.  The scriptures frequently present one point and immediately follow it with the diametrical opposite point to drive home an illustration.  These two stories illustrate the freedom that Jesus offers us.

I call the story “A Tale of Two Tables”.  I’ll paraphrase it for you.  Then I hope you will go check it out.  Don’t believe me merely because I tell you something.  Don’t believe anyone merely because they tell you something.  Always verify it.

So the story goes something like this:

A large group of people gathered at a number of tables to have a big party.  Theirs was a night of revelry.  They ate and drank and drank and ate.  They were joyous and having a great old time.  But they drank so much that the wine gave out.  These tables were full of lots and lots of tipsy sots!

Table number two was entirely different.  These tables were manned by those who would help people perform their required religious ritual.  They were there to provide the necessary materials for “religion” to reign.  And they went about their business with stone cold sobriety.

Jesus chose to bless one group.  To the other group He administered a good old-fashioned ass whoopin’.  (Okay, I just know that some of you are more concerned about my using the term “ass” than you are about spreading the word of the freedom, love and grace of Jesus Christ.  May I suggest that you take your seat at table two.)  Back to the story.  Jesus has to favor religious piety over raucous celebration….. right?  The end of these stories may surprise you.

In story number one, when the wine ran out Jesus had the headwaiter fill six stone pots to the brim with water.  Each pot contained twenty to thirty gallons.  Then the headwaiter tasted the beverage and discovered that it was wine.  And it was not just any wine.  It was top shelf.  That’s 120 to 180 gallons of wine that Jesus provided for these folks.  The headwaiter was astounded at the quality.  He remarked that usually the best wine is served first and when the guests have drunk freely and they lose their sense of discrimination, then the bottom shelf stuff comes out.  But this time the best wine was saved for last.  (Much to the chagrin of many or the “second table” crowd, the wine of the bible was definitely alcoholic.)  Jesus blessed this crowd with $80 a bottle wine.

The religious crew at the second set of tables was not so lucky.  Jesus fashioned a scourge and drove them out of the temple along with their sheep and oxen.  Then He overturned their tables and poured out their “blood” money.  Such is Jesus’ anger with those who would tie you up in knots with “religiosity”.

You may think you know Jesus because you’re looking at all the “religious” people you know.  You may think Jesus is concerned about rules and regulations and observation of rituals.

He isn’t.  The people at table two are.

You may think Jesus is a party pooper who demands that you clean up your act before you get to know Him and certainly before He would ever consider sitting down at a table with you.

He isn’t.

Jesus was celebrating right along with everybody else at table one.

You may think that you know Him.  Many of you don’t.  He invites you to get to know Him.   Actually He cries out for you to get to know Him.   And when you do He promises to never abandon you.

He would love to have a relationship with you, and perhaps a glass of wine.

He has a way of turning the tables.


Romans 7:18  “For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the wishing is present in me, but the doing of good is not.”

Somebody took the time to take a video of this guy in action.

monkey stealing food


They took a video because it’s kind of funny.  They took a video because the monkey pilfering lunch makes for entertaining viewing.

And no one would hold this guy morally responsible for lifting your lunch.

On the other hand….

Cheating on your diet
Stealing donuts with a hook on a white background

If I lifted your breakfast without your consent no one would be taking any videos.

And no one would think it was funny.

And everyone would hold me morally responsible.

So if humans are morally responsible and monkeys aren’t we have to ask ourselves where that responsibility came from.

In a totally natural world where everything only has natural causes there must have been a morality mutation that occurred somewhere in the old great ape/human common ancestry link.

Hmmmmmm…… has that mutation been isolated on the human genome?

More importantly, what was the benefit to humans to develop it?

I thought it was a battle of the survival of the fittest.  In that world the guy who eats is the guy who wins.

Some might argue that morality is collectively beneficial to the entire human species.

That may be true.

But the first individual to lose his “me first” attitude is not likely to have that mutation passed on to a bunch of others.  And of course he would not only have to pass it on to others, but it would have to thrive in the community and dominate the more aggressive and selfish natural tendencies until it took over the entire species.

As evolutionists stress, it is a brutal world out there and only the strong survive.  So that scenario goes against every principle of the theory of evolution.

Mr. “You first…… no really….. you first” is also last in the reproductive line.

guy holding the door

Another question I have is if morality works so well for humans why don’t other creatures get on board the morality train?


And one more question.

If morality really is genetic




I mean it’s in our genes right?

concentration camp


Or maybe not so much.

Perhaps morality comes from a different origin.

Perhaps it comes from a higher origin.

Perhaps it comes from the author of all life in whose likeness we are created.



Genesis 1:27  “And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”

“I Love Lucy” was a favorite television show when I was a kid.  Week after week Lucy would get herself in hot water.  She was always into some hair-brained scheme that was misleading.  She fancied herself as skilled in the art of deception.

And she was.

For a while.

But invariably the truth would come out and then Ricky would hit us with his famous line, “Lucy, you’ve got some “splainin” to do.”

It was all in fun.  And we couldn’t wait to tune in next week.

But there’s another Lucy whose antics aren’t quite so funny.  She’s a deceiver as well.  Actually she’s just one in a long line of deceivers.


You may know her as “Lucy the hominid” or “The Mother of all Mankind”.


What she is is another in a long line of failed “missing links”.


Lucy’s bones were uncovered in Ethiopia in 1974.  As mammals go she was one of the most complete skeletal fossils ever discovered.  Even so, only 40% of the skeletal bones were recovered.  The skull was essentially absent.  There was a grand total of two skull bones.  There were no hands or feet.  The arms, legs and vertebrae were present in only small pieces, so there was no real idea as to how tall she was nor how long her legs or arms were.


But evolutionists don’t question evolution.  They are not here to view data objectively.  They think evolution is fact.  So it is not a matter of “if” Lucy fits into the evolutionary process.  It is merely a matter of “where” she fits in.


Apes have long arms and short legs.

Humans have long legs and short arms.

Can you guess how the evolutionists “interpreted” the complete skeleton of Lucy even though she only had small fragments of either leg bones or arm bones.


You guessed it!!  Lucy got long legs and short arms, making her very human-like.  Even so, they could only get her up to 3 and a half feet tall.  Not very tall for a human ancestor.


She also got human-like hands and feet.  Never mind that no hands or feet were found.  I mean, come on, let’s not get overly concerned with details!


Then they needed her to stand erect and walk like we do.


One of the reasons they were so quick to think that she stood erect and walked like we do was because of a set of fossilized footprints that were clearly human.  That set of foot prints was found in Laetoli, Tanzania…… 932 miles away!  Both the footprints and the length of the gait was clearly human-like.  And the prints were slightly older than Lucy.  So 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 +1 +1 = 7 and by Golly they must be hers!


So they made her as tall as they could in an effort to make her able to take that kind of stride.  At 3 1/2 feet that stride would still have been difficult.  Kinda like that little “Keep on truckin'” fella whose legs extend out with each step like they are made of elastic.  They gave her virtually totally human feet as well in order to match the footprint.  And they gave her virtually totally human hands as well.  Well…… they kinda had to.


Here’s another little ditty.  A number of years later a hand was found that belonged to Lucy.  It was virtually totally ape-like.  But that didn’t change the evolutionists’ presentation of keeping those totally human-like feet.

Hey!  You do what you gotta’ do!  So she was Lucy, the humanoid with ape-like hands and human-like feet.


Lucy.  Oh Lucy.  It’s not your fault.  After all, you’re only human.  Ummmm…. Well, you’re only trying to be human.


And how about the way her face looked?  There are over 100 depictions of her face, most of which are made by evolutionists, and all are different.  They range from totally ape-like to totally human-like.  Eye color, hair color, density of hair, nose shape are at the artist’s discretion.  None of that was evident merely by looking at the skeleton.


In this picture the center frame is what Lucy’s skull has been determined to look like.  All four of the other frames could be what Lucy looks like once she is “fleshed out”.  And there are over 100 more depictions as well.

Lucy has been determined to be an extinct ape.  She has never been shown to stand erect nor to walk like a human, no matter how much the evolutionists wish it was so.


While I don’t Love Lucy I do sort of like her.  I like her because she is probably an honest mistake.  And a lot of her missing link companions have not been so forthright.


Just like the television series had a new episode every week, the missing link story has a new player every decade or so.

Neanderthal Man – 1856 – Oooops….. a fraud

K wait

Java Man – 1891 – Ooooops….. another fraud

K wait

Piltdown Man – 1908 – Ooooops….. another fraud

K wait……..  K wait

Nebraska Man – 1922 – Ooooops…. another fraud

K wait

Lucy – 1974 – Ooooops….. an extinct ape

K wait

Orce Man – 1984 – Oooooops…… another mistake

K wait


Just like I couldn’t wait for the next episode of “I love Lucy”, I just can’t wait for the next hero to fill the role of “Missing Link”.


Lucy, Lucy….. and all of the rest of you….


You’ve got some “splainin” to do!!!!!



John 1: 1-3  “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the W0rd was God.  He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.” 

Ivory soap floats.  I guess that is helpful if you’re taking a bath.  You don’t have to go searching for it on the bottom of the tub every time you want to use it.  But that’s about the only advantage it has over Dial or Zest or any of the other competitors.

However, there is something else that floats.  Unlike Ivory soap, if this item did not float the world would be a much different place.  Perhaps earth would not be uninhabitable, but living on this planet would be bleak indeed.

Maybe you’ve guessed that I’m referring to


Virtually all liquids contract and become denser as their temperature decreases, until finally, they congeal into a solid.  The solid, being denser than the liquid, sinks to the bottom and the process of congealing continues from the bottom up.

Not so with water.

Water contracts until it reaches 4 degrees C.  At that point it expands continuously until it finally congeals into ice.  The coldest water is actually at the top.  At that point another phenomenal event occurs.  The instant ice forms it expands even further, causing it to float.

Gentoo Penguin playtime at your local iceberg, Antarctica


If water followed that natural law of other materials, bodies of water would freeze from the bottom up.   And once frozen hardly any heat applied to the surface would cause them to thaw.  Michael Denton, in “Nature’s Destiny”, explains that in a vessel containing ice at the bottom and water at the top, Rumford made the upper liquid boil without thawing the congealed ice cake below.

If the natural law of materials had prevailed with water, the ice cake at the bottom of lakes, ponds and rivers would have increased with every occasion of freezing until the entire body was frozen solid.  Then there would only be small pools of water on the surface as the summer sun would thaw.  And those would freeze again at the first opportunity.

Our rivers, ponds and lakes would be devoid of life.  So would large portions of the oceans.  As a matter of fact, most of the water on earth would be permanently frozen into vast beds of ice on the bottom of the oceans.

William Whewell, master of Trinity College, Cambridge observed that the laws governing water are apparently a contrived violation of what would otherwise appear to be a natural law.  He further states that the expansion of water at 4 degrees C as well as the expansion of ice are two independent properties both of which “are mutually adapted toward the end of preserving bodies of liquid water on a planetary surface”.

I will end with the observations of Lawrence Henderson, professor of biological chemistry at Harvard University concerning the thermal properties of water and ice. (1)  Henderson states:

  1. The anomalous facts that water contracts as it cools until just before freezing, after which it expands until it becomes ice, and then it expands on freezing are practically unique.
  2. When ice melts or water evaporates, heat is absorbed from the environment. Heat is released when the reverse happens.  This is the phenomenon know as latent heat.  The latent heat of freezing water is one of the highest of all known fluids.  In the ambient temperature range only ammonia has a higher latent heat of freezing.  Water’s latent heat of evaporation is the highest of any known fluid in the ambient temperature range.
  3. The thermal capacity or specific heat of water, which is the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of water one degree centigrade, is higher than most other liquids.
  4. The thermal conductivity of water, which is its capacity to conduct heat, is four times greater than any other common liquid.
  5. The thermal conductivities of ice and snow are low.

If not for the properties of point 1, most of the water on earth would be permanently frozen into vast beds of ice at the the bottom of the oceans.  Lakes would freeze completely from the bottom up in the higher latitudes.

Without the properties in point 2, the climate would be subject to far more rapid temperature changes.  Small lakes and rivers would vanish and reappear constantly.

Without 3, the difference between winter and summer would be more extreme and weather patterns would be less stable, and the great ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream, which currently transfer vast quantities of heat from the tropics to the poles, would be far less capable of moderating the temperature differences between high and low latitudes.

Again without 2, warm-blooded animals would have a far greater difficulty ridding their bodies of heat.  Henderson was particularly struck by the adaptive significance of the cooling effect of the latent heat of evaporation in the case of warm-blooded animals.  Because, as Henderson points out, “in an animal like man… heat is a most prominent excretory product, which has to be constantly eliminated in great amounts, and to this end only three important means are available – conduction, radiation, and evaporation.”  But at body temperature “very little heat can be lost by conduction or radiation and evaporative cooling is therefore the only significant means of temperature reduction. “And he concludes: “To sum up, this property appears to possess a threefold importance.  First, it operates powerfully to equalize and to moderate the temperature of the earth; secondly, it makes possible very effective regulation of the temperature of the living organism; and thirdly it favors the meteorological cycle.  All of these effects are true maxima, for no other substance in this respect compares with water.”  Conversely, as the temperature falls, condensation occurs and this releases heat which tends to counteract the rate of temperature fall.  Moreover, as Henderson points out there is another aspect of the fitness of the latent heat of evaporation – the fact that as the temperature rises so does the rate of evaporation and so consequently does the cooling effect of evaporation.  So the cooling effect of evaporation increases when the usefulness of the property is most needed.



Without 4 it would be harder for cells which cannot use convection currents to distribute heat evenly throughout the cell.

Without 5 the protective insulation of snow and ice, essential to the survival of many forms of life in the higher latitudes, would be lost.  Also water would cool more rapidly and small lakes would be more likely to freeze completely.

All of this is the precise suitability of merely the thermal properties of water.

It is my hope that as you read through these posts that you are beginning to appreciate the incredible precision of our universe from the galaxies right down to the membrane of a cell.

That precision indicates design.

You are the work of the Master Designer



Romans 11:34  “For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor?”

It took me forever to figure out why the Wicked Witch of the West hung out with a bunch of flying monkeys as opposed to regular humans…… well as “regular” as humans can be in Oz anyway.  I kept thinking it was because she was so evil and monkeys just don’t have a moral compass.  Then it hit me.  The Wicked Witch of the West can’t bathe!  That’s not offensive to monkeys.

But it would be very offensive to most of us.

Man Holding Nose


The fact that the Wicked Witch of the West dissolves in water seems pretty odd.  And I guess it is odd.

However, the fact that you and I DON’T dissolve in water is more of a miracle than you might imagine.

In his book, “Nature’s Destiny”, Michael Denton illustrates just how amazingly fit for life our universe is.  Although an agnostic, Denton is very outspoken in claiming that the universe has all of the appearances of being designed for life.  He even goes so far as to say that it has all of the appearances of being designed for life like us………… humans.

He says that the processes of life would have to be performed in a liquid medium.  Few would disagree.  Solids are far too inert to allow the chemical processes and reactions that are necessary for life.



Gases would be far too volatile.

Glowing Hazy Light In Cloudy Background


A liquid medium is necessary.  The demands on that liquid medium are vast, necessitating a nearly perfect medium.

Enter water.



Dentin discusses how water’s thermal properties alone, including latent heat, specific heat, thermal conductivity and expansion and contraction properties make it unique.  Beyond that, water’s surface tension, density, viscosity and non-Newtonian characteristics place it in a category of fitness unapproachable by any other liquid.  And the list continues even beyond those.

But today I want to speak of yet another characteristic of water that make it the matchless medium.

The universal solvent.

Water could have no biological role if it was not a good solvent.

Lawrence Henderson, professor of biological chemistry at Harvard said, “It turns out that, as a solvent, water is indeed ideally fit.  So much so that water approaches far nearer than any other liquid to the alkahest, the universal mythical solvent of the alchemists.”

Nearly all known chemicals dissolve in water to a slight, but detectable extent.  It also catalyzes almost all known reactions.

Although quite reactive it is not as reactive as other liquids.  Many acids and alkalies will dissolve substances almost insoluble in water in a matter of seconds.  But these acids and alkalies use themselves up in the process by reacting with the solutes.

Water could not fulfill its biological role if it was either a highly reactive fluid like sulfuric acid or if it was an entirely unreactive fluid like liquid argon.  Henderson says that “water is ideally fit for both its biological and its geological role.”

                                          WATER IS NEARLY PERFECT!!!

 Nearly…… but not quite.  Water cannot dissolve lipids, or fats as we call them.

And that’s why the Wicked Witch of the West melted when Dorothy poured water on her.  She was just too skinny.  She needed to put on some fat.

Amazingly, every single one of our cells, be they muscle cells, bone cells nerve cells or whatever, are surrounded by a cell membrane that is tri-layered.  The membrane has lipids on the outside and lipids on the inside.  The lipids on the inside keep water in the cell where it belongs.  The lipids on the outside keep the water outside the cell where it belongs.

We are 70% water yet we stand erect, we run, we lift objects.  We are pretty much a giant bag of water, or more precisely millions upon millions of tiny bags of water that all work in concert with one another.  Yet we don’t dissolve ourselves from the inside.  And I thank God every time I go swimming that I don’t dissolve myself from the outside.

That’s why you don’t see witches at the beach.

One last thought.  How did a cell with this tri-layer form?  Did a cell membrane “empty bag” form first and somehow got filled with a nucleus, mitochondria, ribosomes, etc. and of course water?  Or did the nucleus, mitochondria, ribosomes etc. just form in water all in a clump and were “engulfed and sealed up” by a membrane that was floating around in the area?

God only knows!!




Occam’s razor is a well regarded guideline for life.  It is also observed in the sciences. More about that razor later.  Right now I want to talk about math.

Mathematics is an integral part of science.  If you were to talk to any scientist in private, when they had their guard down, they would never for a moment dispute the importance of math in science.  How many times have you seen the scientist at a blackboard that is covered by mathematical equations?  Math and science are inseparable.

equations on a blackboard


There are 7,000,000,000 people on earth.  How much would you be willing to bet that if I randomly picked ONE person living anywhere on earth without telling you anything about them, that you could get in a plane, boat, car, bicycle, walk and pick out that one person correctly on the first try?



That would be a 7,000,000,000 to 1 bet.  Those are pretty slim odds.


Science is a lot more generous.  They give anything a 1 in 10 to the 50th power chance before they call it impossible.  (that’s a 10 with a little 50 above and to the right of it)


That looks like this.  1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Those are far slimmer odds.  Still, like I said, science tries to cut every possibility a break.

But science draws the line at some point.  At some point science determines that an event is mathematically impossible.

Wellllllll…….. there are exceptions!


If your “science” happens to be the pseudo-science of evolution then all bets disappear and math goes flying into the waste paper basket like your last lottery ticket.


In his book, “Just Six Numbers”, Martin Rees gives a developed account of six specific numbers that must be within a very, very limited range in order for life to exist. (1)

They are:

N  (Ratio of gravity to electrical force)  1:10 to the 36th power.

Anything less and life as we know it doesn’t exist.


E (Coupling constant for the strong force)

The value is 0.007

If E was 0.006 or 0.008 we could not exist


Omega (density of the universe)

A slight change higher and the universe would have collapsed

A slight change lower and galaxies and stars would not have formed


Lambda (energy density of the universe)

Lambda is very small.  Otherwise it would have stopped galaxies and stars from forming


Q (Energy to break up galactic clusters)

1/100,000 in value

Even smaller and the universe would be inert

Much larger and the universe would be a violent place


D (Spatial dimensions)

D = 3

Life couldn’t exist if it were 2 or 4.


With the exception of the number of spatial dimensions these are all either very large or very small numbers.  If any of these numbers were slightly different, life would be impossible.

Yet they must all exist virtually precisely as they are.

The odds of that happening are calculated by multiplying together the probability of each of those separate events happening.  Now we’re talking a really huge number!


Agnostic physicist Paul Davies tells us, “Had the explosion (of the Big Bang) differed in strength at the outset by only one part in 10 to the 60th power, the universe we now perceive would not exist.”


Oxford University physics professor Roger Penrose (a self-proclaimed agnostic) gave a figure of 10,000,000,000 to the 123rd power for the uniqueness of the Big Bang singularity.


The likelihood of certain proteins developing on earth has been determined to be a chance of 1 in 10 to the 237th power.


To get your head around a figure like that it is more than all of the electrons in the known universe.


And you thought picking the one human out of all of those living on earth was a task!  Heck, that’s a piece of cake.  Try taking a space ship ride throughout the universe and choosing the one electron I have selected…… Careful now!  Are you sure it’s that one!


Evolutionists don’t bother with the bet.   It’s not that they question the math.

They don’t.

However, with their philosophical mindset they have already determined that we evolved.  “We’re here aren’t we?”


Their solution to the massive improbability that our universe meets all of the above requirements?


There are an INFINITE number of universes that co-exist side by side.  They are like an infinite number of bubbles.  Some are moving away from us faster than the speed of light.  Some may crash into us, but we wouldn’t even know it.  Those two particular universes would merely pass through each other uneventfully.


But here is the important thing.  Because there are an infinite number of universes at least one of them must meet the necessary criteria mentioned above.  One would be able to support life as we know it.  And we just happen to live in that universe.


We can’t see those other universes.

We can’t test this hypothesis.

These scientists actually say that we are in this universe because it is the only one that can support us.

Duh…. well I guess that would have to be true.

Would God create us and place us in a universe that would not support us.

Duh… well I guess not.


Even if this crazy theory is true it only speaks to why we are in this universe.  It does not begin to speak to how we got here.

It is so incredibly evident that evolutionists can only accept a totally natural explanation for life.  It is so incredibly obvious that they accept evolution as fact because, after all,  “What else is there?”

By the way, the amount of proof that exists for this theory?



Now there is a number I can understand!


And now for the shave.

Occam’s razor says that the simplest explanation is the best explanation.

Occam’s razor (also written as Ockham’s razor, and lex parsimoniae in Latin, which means law of parsimony) is a problem-solving principle attributed to William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347), who was an English Franciscan friar and scholastic philosopher and theologian. The principle can be interpreted as stating Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

In science, Occam’s razor is used as a heuristic technique (discovery tool) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models, rather than as an arbiter between published models.[1][2] In the scientific method, Occam’s razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result; the preference for simplicity in the scientific method is based on the falsifiability criterion. For each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there may be an extremely large, perhaps even incomprehensible, number of possible and more complex alternatives, because one can always burden failing explanations with ad hoc hypotheses to prevent them from being falsified; therefore, simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are more testable.[3][4][5

Option #1.

We exist among an infinite number of parallel universes each of which is unseen, each of which developed in a like manner to our already unknowable universe, each of which occupies the same time/space continuum, everyone of which is outside of our own and is  untouchable and is unknowable, and each requiring an exhaustive amount of matter and energy….. totaling an INFINITE amount of matter and energy.

Option #2.

One God


Anybody need a razor?


(1) Evidence Unseen – James M. Rochford



Genesis 1:26  “Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”


There’s a mammal living down by the river.   WAY DOWN by the river.  WAY DOWN UNDER by the river.

It has fur like a mammal.

It produces milk like a mammal.

It has a tail like a beaver.

It has webbed feet to help it swim.  But it only uses its front feet when it swims.  It tucks its back feet in.

When it walks it walks on its knuckles to protect those webs.


But then again


It lays eggs like a bird or a reptile.


It has a bill like a duck.

It walks with its feet to the side like a reptile.

It has no teeth – like a bird.

It has no nipples.  Instead the female sweats its milk onto its chest where the young lap it up.

The male has talons on its back legs like a bird.

Those talons have venom like a snake.


And weirder yet


It has eyes, however, in the millions of years of “evolution” it “opted” to close those eyes when it hunts.

platypus underwater #1

As luck would have it this creature developed an electro-location system for finding its prey that is exquisitely precise.  It developed that system over millions of years through miniscule changes provided by totally random mutations that in and of themselves had no advantage yet hung around in each succeeding generation and just randomly kept improving until it reached perfection.  Yet in those millions of years it didn’t starve because….. because…. because…. well it would be better if one of your evolutionist friends explained that.  I’m kinda thinkin’ it would have better off using its eyes.


You already know this little misfit is the platypus.


Here is a fun video on this little fella.  At the end of the video the narrator is going to “splain” how this guy evolved.  Meet me on the other side of the video because I want to discuss that explanation.


The platypus may muddy the waters a bit as it hunts.  But, as usual, the attempt to explain the platypus’ evolving is merely another attempt to muddy the waters.


Here’s how the platypus evolved.

A.  There used to be a lot of monotremes in Australia.



B.  There were “platypus-like” creatures in the fossil record 61 million years ago.

Actually they were intact platypuses.  They just had teeth.


C.  There was a really big platypus that was discovered.

What it was was a really big….. wait for it…… platypus.


D.  They took to the water when the marsupials arrived.


So this explains how the platypus changed from a big one with teeth to a smaller one without teeth.  I’ll buy that.

What it doesn’t even attempt to explain is how the heck an animal came into existence that has fur, a duckbill, a beaver tail, venom, lays eggs, sweats milk, walks like a reptile and on its knuckles no less, and has an electro-location mechanism to locate its prey.  Where are the common ancestors for that?!


I’m guessing it was the yet to be discovered mamphibirdtile.


But hey, they don’t have to keep looking because the friendly narrator lady “splained” everything……. And with a smile no less!

The platypus is unique.  It looks like a bunch of things put together.

You are unique as well.

You were made in the image of God.




Job 38:4, 5   “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?  Tell Me, if you have understanding, Who set its measurements, since you know?”


Evolutionists love to play games with us.  They play them all the time.  They play a bunch of them.  One of their favorite games is one I call “Quantum Leap Frog”.


It is played in two steps.


One step is to start by pointing out minor changes or adaptations within a given species.  Incidentally, no one disputes these minor changes.  They are sometimes called “microevolution” and include things like:


Darwin’s famous finches and their beaks.  Finches have beaks of varying sizes.  Darwin observed finches on the Galapagos Islands and noticed that under certain conditions finches with bigger, stronger beaks prevailed in number.

They remained finches


Evolutionists point out the number of dog breeds that can be produced.

dog breeds


They remain dogs


A strain of bacteria may become penicillin resistant.

It remains the same strain and incidentally will quickly revert back to its former state once the penicillin is removed.


Once again, this is called adaptation and no one disputes it.


But evolutionists like to help you along.  They will show you this type of evolution and say, “See, evolution exists.”


Then later on they will pull a bait and switch.   They will “show” you how a thing crawled out of the slime and a few billion years later did an appendectomy on you.  Hey, it’s all just evolution after all.

evolution from single cell


That’s called “macroevolution”…….. and there is absolutely NO evidence for it.



The other way the game is played is to start with a “given”.  Those of you who took geometry know how that works.  A geometry theorem starts with a “given”.  You are allowed to start from that point and proceed with your proof.


Evolutionists like to start with a “given” as well.  It makes “life” a lot easier for them when they do.  They frequently tell you how every organism on earth evolved from a “simple” single celled organism.


The following video talks about the cell membrane.  I hope you watch the whole thing.  The point is not to try to understand it all.  Who possibly could!  What I am expecting is that half way through the presentation you will be laughing as hard as I was at the thought of a cell being “simple”.

Remember – this is just the cell membrane.  This doesn’t even begin to address the things inside the cell, like the nucleus, DNA, RNA, ribosomes, mitochondria, messenger RNA, etc, etc, etc…..


Anyone for a game of leapfrog?


Romans 1:20 – “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made…”

Women really are better at getting directions!

The honey bee is one incredible character.  Bee hives are inhabited by thousands upon thousands of bees.  And with, the exception of a few drones, every one of them is a female.

I was first introduced to the world of honey bees by an old friend of mine.  I met him while I was in the Navy and stationed in San Diego.  He remained in San Diego and dabbled in all sorts of things.  One of them was raising honey bees.

On one of my visits Jeff told me that he wanted to show me something astounding.  He took me to the site of his honey bee hives.  It was located in the foothills of the Rockies and situated on a canyon.  He pointed across the canyon and said “See those flowering bushes across the canyon?  Those are sage and make some of the sweetest honey.  But that’s not the amazing thing, Craig.  How the bees navigate is something that is almost too much to imagine.”

He told me that bees use the sun to navigate and do it so precisely that if he were to move the hive a few feet the bees would return and never find it.  They would return to the exact spot they left….. within literally a foot or two….  And they would die.




Bees navigate using the sun as their “compass”.

Bees use the ultraviolet light of the sun so they can navigate even on cloudy days.

Bees are little mathematicians and use angles to the sun, both vertical and horizontal, to determine location.

graduate bee!!


Bees compensate for the sun’s movement across the sky during the day.

Bees compensate for the height of the sun as the seasons roll on.

Bees are able to “update” the position of the sun as they spend hours in the dark hive.  When they come out of the hive they already know how far the sun has moved and compensate accordingly.


I have a frontal cortex that is light years beyond the brain of a bee.


A bee’s brain is 20,000 times less massive than mine.


But if you and I were making a trip to a neighboring town for the first time you wouldn’t want to go with me unless I had a GPS.  Relying on me to get us home without the aid of advanced technology would be the dance of the doomed.

confused man!


I’d make the wrong turn coming out of McDonald’s!

You’d want a bee on the dashboard.  You’d want a bee…… not me!

Furthermore, the bee wouldn’t wait around “acquiring satellites”.  She’d be on her way immediately.  (And women say men don’t bother to get directions)

The lack of a precise navigational tool is a death warrant to a bee.

Every single one of these preposterous abilities are a part of the “bee brain”.  She is certainly no “pea brain”.

They all must function in unison.

The complexity of this system defies explanation by a slow, cumbersome series of minute mutations and selections.  Ask your evolutionist friend to map out how this process “evolved”.  I’m betting you won’t hear from them.

But you’ll hear from me again.

The next thing I want to talk about is how these very same bees are some of the world’s best “guidance counselors”.




Pigs are pretty smart animals.  Maybe smarter than evolutionists.


I’d like to talk about a point that may help simplify the difference between a creationist and an evolutionist.


A creationist thinks that birds have wings so they can fly.


An evolutionist thinks that birds fly because they have wings.


An evolutionist’s stance is that everything occurs through natural means.  There is no possibility of supernatural intervention.  Therefore, everything occurs out of nothing.  Also, everything progresses in a totally random manner to arrive at the universe we see today as well as the organisms that inhabit it.

The point I am about to make holds true for the evolution of every organism, every organ,  every cell, and every organic process.


But let’s use the example of a reptile evolving into a bird.


The reptile has to start with a minute, random mutation.  Let’s say its two front legs start to mutate into things that start to look like flappers.  The legs would start to change for no apparent reason and after thousands of random mutations that for some reason keep going in the same direction the animal now hops around like its on crutches.

At the same time the respiratory system is slowly and mindlessly changing into that of the avian lung, replacing a lung that worked perfectly well before and still functions perfectly well in the reptiles we see today.  And how a lung half way between that of a reptile and that of a bird even functions at all is anybody’s guess.  Evolutionists haven’t even bothered to guess.

At the same time the animal is slowly and mindlessly developing feathers.

The same holds true for becoming warm blooded.

Each one of these tiny steps has to have an advantage to the animal in the real world in which it lives.  And if it does, that animal is superior to the one before it and should increase in numbers.  Every one of those intermediates must be superior in evolutionary status to the one preceding it as well as to the reptile from which it started.  The intermediates are superior to the organism from which they started.

Intermediates should be the norm.  There should not be “end points” like the end points of branches on a tree that the evolutionists point to.  You don’t arrive at birds and suddenly there is an “ah ha” moment.  “Ah ha, the work is finally done!”

The world should be a mishmash of stuff that is just evolving…. Into what who knows!

And then this random thing takes off into the air in perfect flight!!

And gosh darn if they don’t fly beautifully!!!


Thanks intermediates.  I guess we don’t need you anymore because we have arrived.  Never mind that the intermediates were superior to the reptiles that managed to somehow hang around.


That’s the evolutionists’ stance.  That’s what you have to believe when you are confronted with a giant, random accident.


Now here is the creationists’ stance.


God wanted animals to fill the sky.  He made them perfectly to do just that.



And gosh don’t they fly beautifully!!


He also made reptiles and that’s why they are here today and not replaced by a superior evolutionary product.


And that’s why there is not a mishmash of random mutation going hither and yon in either the real world or the fossil record.


God did not make intermediates because He didn’t need them.  And low and behold they are nowhere to be found.


And there is no “tree” with reptiles, mammals, birds, fish, and amphibians at the tips of those imaginary branches that also don’t exist.


There are simply reptiles, mammals, birds, fish, and amphibians.


In the immortal words of Porky Pig.  “Abbeddeabeddeabbedea….. that’s all folks!”



What’s in your backyard?