Pictures of Evolution

Image result for pictures of evolution

Look up Evolution.

Then look for pictures, photos, or images of evolution.

You will quickly notice an interesting void.  There are none.

We have photographic images of virtually everything in this world, from pictures of our entire earth taken from space, down to the tiniest electron microscope images of objects a million times smaller than a human hair. We have scientific images representing millions of concepts.  You will find photographic evidence of the grandeur of life, the cosmos, and the earth and all its ecosystems.

sky earth galaxy universe
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Every branch of science is meticulously documented with millions of explanatory and supportive images. But you will not find pictures of evolution.  Anywhere.  Ever.

What you will likely find is a comic book drawing that has been reproduces tens of millions of times that shows some of the supposed variations and stages between a monkey and a man.  You will see an animal that walks on all fours, gradually transformed (on paper) into a bi-pedal, upright animal that looks like a human being. But that is the only type of image you will find.  You will not find photographic evidence of evolution from monkey to man, because it does not exist. In fact you will not find photographic images of any type of plant, animal, bacteria, or living thing evolving into another more advanced living thing. You will only find “comic book” illustrations originating from someone’s overactive imagination.

If you are of a scientific mindset one can’t help but wonder about two things.  First, why is there no evidence of evolution after over a hundred years of diligent searching by thousands of the worlds best scientists?  And second, why do we accept atheistic statements that evolution is a proven fact, with there is such a dearth of evidence? (see prior blogs, Hoaxed, Lemmings, and What about Natural Selection)

Not only can evolutionists show you NO pictures of current evolution or recent evolution.  In addition they have NO pictures or evidence of evolution from the fossil record (See prior post The Data in the Strata). They have NO proof from the study of genomics that humans are connected to apes, or that ANY of their proposed “closely related species” actually evolved, one from another (see The Created Chimp Genome). They have complete skeletal fossils of thousands of extinct species, yet NONE of any type of “missing link” from ape to man. Even as recently as 2017 the BBC admits we have still not found anything resembling a missing link (or as they prefer to call it Last Common Ancestor).(1) For this supposedly recent transformation, we only have imaginary “artists renditions”.  Anthropologists have reconstructed entire fanciful images (Such as Java Man, Homo Habilis, and Australopithecus sediba) from a small piece of skull, a tooth, and a thigh bone, or even less. We even have full artists renditions of a supposed LCA “imagineered” from a partial skull! This is unfortunately what modern “science” has become. In the effort to prove evolution to be true, all scientific integrity has been abandoned, and the wildest of unsupported, unsubstantiated claims have been accepted.

But if there are no pictures or evidence of actual LCA (Last Common Ancestor) from fossils, then at least we should see pictures and evidence of our genetic decent from apes in the field of genomics.  Textbooks should by now be full of chapters delineating the progressive ongoing change in our DNA from the lower apes, to the chimps, and to humankind.  But the opposite is in fact true. In fact much of the genomic data now points to a RECENT origin for humanity. (See prior blogs on The Created Chimp Genome, and Hoaxed).

And yet schools and colleges continue to teach the myth of Evolution.

 

(1) http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170517-we-have-still-not-found-the-missing-link-between-us-and-apes

Millennials: A Generation Lost in Deep Time

 

antique architecture classic clock
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Many millennials are lost. According to an article in the Huff Post entitled “Millennials: The Lost Generation”, “Today we have a whole group of young people that we call millennials – men and women ages 18-33, who have higher rates of depression, stress and suicide, than any generation before them.“(1) An internet search on “millennials the lost generation” reveals scores of hits. But one naturally wonders, why is this generation lost? 

Perhaps they are lost because they have no strong sense of personal identity.  Perhaps they are lost because millions of their parents were more interested in being drunk or high than being parents. Perhaps they are lost because they are misled by politicians whose only concern is power, not Truth. 

Or perhaps, as I am prone to believe, they are lost because they have no foundations on which to base their lives. They are lost because they have no moral compass, no set of coherent eternal truths, no absolutes.  They are lost because they have been taught in the halls of academia that there is no such thing as absolute truth.  

Moreover, they are lost because academia has told them they cannot believe the Bible.  And they fell for it, hook line and sinkerWhy did they believe such a lie?  Because atheistic scientists said it, and so it must be true

But think about this!  Atheistic scientists would say the Bible is false even if Jesus himself healed a withered hand or restored sight to a blind man in their presence! They are atheists!  Everything they say, do, predict or interpret is seen though their atheistic world view! Therefore it is no surprise that atheists say the Bible is not true. But what does the Bible say about atheists?  It says they are fools. Psalm 14:1 reads “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.”(2)  Who then should we believe? The atheists or the Word of God?

In addition, as written by Matt Slick, atheism is in itself ultimately self refuting. “A materialist atheist has no intellectual justification whatsoever to trust his own thinking because his physical brain cannot exceed the limits of physics and chemistry. Therefore, there’s no reason for him to conclude that his rationality is correct since his brain is acting “mechanically.” (3) In other words, every response by a materialistic atheist to any argument, including belief or disbelief in God, is by their own definitions a mere random, pre-programmed chemical reaction. It has no merit, no basis, no meaning!

Unfortunately Millennials have been given a choice of believing science, or believing the Word of God.  Such a forced choice is irrational, and unnecessary because science and God’s word are not contradictory. But Public Education has failed them, because they took away even the possibility of Biblical truth.  Instead they filled their heads with diagrams of an outdated and scientifically disproven evolutionary tree of life, fraudulent Piltdown man, and imaginary monkey to man diagrams. Consequently, an entire generation has lost faith in the Bible due to the atheistic, secular agenda in our schools.

We trusted the government to teach our children.  But as stated by Mary Nutting at Answers in Genesis, “Many families today are in deep trouble because they have not been “diligently teaching” their children. Instead, they have left it to the schools, media, museums, national parks, and others to do the job.”(4) And the government trusted the textbooks, and the textbooks trusted the atheists. But why did the texts use atheistic presuppositions to program our children against belief in God, or the Bible? Perhaps because some of the arguments for an ancient universe seem so logical, at least on the surface. Like Deep Time.

The strongest atheistic arguments against the Bible are those rooted in Deep Time (for example light travelling across the universe).  The atheists have convinced most of the world that Genesis cannot be literally true because of the long ages they claim are shown by geology and astronomy.  (See prior posts on Ancient, Where’s the Proof, and Pluto and the Mickey Mouse Astronomers)  Deep Time is the foundational belief that undergirds atheistic arguments against Biblical truth by suggesting everything about the Bible timeline is impossible.  According to the internet dictionary, deep time is: “the multimillion year time frame within which scientists believe the earth has existed, and which is supported by the observation of natural, mostly geological, phenomena.” It will exceed the scope of this post to instruct the reader fully as to why Deep Time is an unreliable concept, but suffice it to say that as with all other scientific conclusions reached by atheists, the science is subject to the ideology.

In other words, when an atheistic scientist makes a choice to absolutely rule out any possibility of God the Creator, this choice influences and pervades and contaminates all their other research and conclusions. No matter how clearly the scientific evidence might be in pointing to a Creator, the avowed atheist will not see it. The simple fact is that the existence of the universe, and the existence of life itself are miraculous.  Atheists choose their explanations for the miracles, a “Big Bang” for which they have no proof, followed by life randomly creating and advancing itself out of nothing.  Bible scholars and scientifically oriented Christians choose another explanation.

Deep Time was a concept well fitted to evolution. The theory of evolution required time spans of hundreds of millions of years to be at all believable. Of course open minded scientists now know that evolution cannot occur no matter how many millions of years one postulates. Deep Time is no longer relevant. (Watch for future blogs on the scientific evidence against Deep Time, you may be surprised.)  In the near future, as the house of cards called Evolution continues to collapse, we may see thousands more open minded scientists, biologists, and astronomers addressing the concept of deep time as well.  

My  hope is that very soon, as a result of these advances in scientific understanding, Millennials will not remain lost.  They will have hope.  They will find the gospel.  They will seek and find the Bible, and they will find the vast amounts of scientific and archeological evidence that supports the Bible.  They won’t find it, of course, in the halls of atheistic, anti-God, anti-Christ academia.  But you can find it, even now, in places like Answers in Genesis, Evolutioncreation.net, and Creation.com.

(1)www.huffpost.com/entry/millennials-the-lost-generation_b_582aaabde4b0852d9ec21ca9

(2) Psalms 14:1 KJV

(3) carm.org/materialistic-atheism-self-refuting

(4) answersingenesis.org/family/families-are-gods-idea-beginning-in-genesis/

(5) ibid

 

The Day Evolution Died

trees in park
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Evolution is dead.  (See my prior posts entitled, Evolution:Just the Facts, and Evolution, God, and Probability.) But like a zombie in an apocalypse movie it refuses to go away.  Its rotten corpse continues to stink in the halls of academic sciences, and no amount of formaldehyde can prevent the stench.  I can offer various theories as to why a belief in such an obviously unsupportable theory persist, but I suppose, like belief in vampires and zombies, some people will believe anything.  In the long view, evolution will be shown to be just a PC, faddish belief without an iota of factual scientific evidence.

Proponents of evolution would have you believe, in spite of evidence to the contrary, that we have proof from the geologic record that shows a gradual increase in the complexity of life.  This is a lie.  (See my post on The Data in the Strata.)

They would have you believe that we have proof from the lab that life can “create itself” from a lightning strike and a soup of  pre-life chemicals.  This is also a lie.  This has never occurred, in spite of over a century of attempts by scientists who are desperate to prove evolution. (See prior post Micro-evolution under the Microscope.)

They would have you believe that “we see evolution all around us.” But they knowingly substitute examples of natural selection, and pass it off as evolution.  This is also a blatant lie.  (See prior posts on Natural Selection)

Evolution (by definition) requires increasing complexity of the genetic code. Evolution as an explanation for life on earth as we know it would have required trillions upon trillions upon trillions of increases in the complexity of the genetic code.  Yet as of this writing there is not one proven example of any mutation at any time, in any living thing, that has increased or added to the complexity of the DNA. Not One!

 In fact after over a hundred years of lab scientists radiating the rapidly reproducing fruit fly hoping to demonstrate evolution, all we have is normal, dead, or deformed fruit flies. And after studying hundreds of thousands of generations of bacteria, not one evolutionary scientist anywhere in the world has shown the addition of new genomic material.  Yet evolutionists would have you believe that the many thousands of evolutionary changes from “Neanderthal Man” to the current day occurred in just 40,000 years (less than 2000 generations)!

Even Wikipedia admits that Biologists “used to believe” that evolution was progressive.  The first fatal blow to progressive evolution was in the fossils themselves. The claim of progressive evolution received another fatal blow from genomics.  Modern genomics (which should have easily proven progressive evolution) has instead shown that the supposed evolutionary Tree of Life is not real. It exists only on paper or in outdated, unscientific textbooks written by pro-evolution atheists.  Secular scientists have rearranged it, diversified it, changed it, and even cut and pasted it to no avail.  The Tree of Life is dead.  Belief in evolution should have died with it. So if you were educated under the teachings of atheistic fools, and were taught that the universe created itself out of nothing, and life is some giant cosmic accident, today you have a choice.  You can continue to accept the ungodly propaganda of the atheists, or today can be the day you accept the fact that there is no scientific support for evolution.  For you TODAY can be the day that evolution died.

 

Psalm 14:1 “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.”

Science vs Reason

ball shaped circle close up dark
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Yes, you read that correctly. The title of today’s blog is NOT faith vs reason.  It is science vs reason.  It seems most of society currently believes that science is the answer to all humanity’s questions.  Science is assumed to be logical, rational, and reasonable.  Science is looked on as the dependable and unassailable bastion of all truth. Science can tell us whether the universe is the grand design of God, or an accident of cosmology. Science can supposedly tell us if we are a child of God or the children of apes.

Faith, on the other hand, (at least in the secular media and on college campuses) is represented as illogical, irrational, and unreasonable.  Faith, according to the secular academics, is for stupid people, and science is for the thoughtful, rational, deductive, “smart” people.  Right?  (I think not.  But perhaps we can discuss that another day.)  Today we discuss Science vs Reason.

Science, like mathematics, logic, or philosophy are wonderful things, when applied properly to an appropriate subject or area.  But by the same token, like any other discipline, science can give misleading or inaccurate information when misapplied.  (See earlier blogs on Scientism.)  If we applied pure science in medicine, there would be no place for empathy, compassion or intuition. Very ill patients might be evaluated and terminated.  Emotions might be ignored.  In fact, there would be absolutely nothing precluding experimentation on prisoners if science alone were our guide..

In a similar vein, pure mathematics cannot solve many types of scientific problems where trial and error are indispensable to provide proof of a theory.  Historical studies are not well suited to solving problems in math or science.  Yet the current fad among institutions of scientific research is to believe all questions in all areas of learning can either be solved by science, or to presume that other areas of study offer solutions inferior to the solutions offered by science. Such an application of so called “science” is not only irrational and unreasonable.  It is dangerous. It is in effect sham philosophy pretending to be science. If mankind were a mere collection of chemicals, without free will and moral choices, perhaps science alone could be our god.  But we are more.  Much more.

Consider for example, philosophy.  As stated by Julian Friedland,

For roughly 98 percent of the last 2,500 years of Western intellectual history, philosophy was considered the mother of all knowledge. It generated most of the fields of research still with us today. This is why we continue to call our highest degrees Ph.D.’s, namely, philosophy doctorates. At the same time, we live an age in which many seem no longer sure what philosophy is or is good for anymore.(1)

Philosophy as a means of understanding the world clearly has limitations. Philosophers are of no help in building complicated machines or directing complex chemical processes.  In fact, philosophy has gotten a bad rap because so many philosophers and their arguments are totally disconnected from reality.  Even at its best, philosophy relies on very specific word choices, and is often subject to interpretation and argumentation when viewed from different vantage points. So it seems perfectly understandable that humanity would seek a more solid ground for understanding the universe, and the natural and obvious choice would seem to be science.

But as written by Joseph Rowlands, “The problem is that many scientists sought to escape from the clutches of rationalizing philosophy by jumping into Empiricism, the philosophy that rejects theoretical knowledge and only accepts direct sensory evidence.  As Rand said, philosophy is inescapable.  You don’t have a choice about having one.  If you try to reject philosophy, you’re just enslaving yourself to your implicit philosophy.” (2)

That is the absolute key to today’s discussion.  We are not given the choice of philosophy or faith vs science.  We are only given the choice of which philosophy we use to approach science.  Science in and of itself is nothing but a tool.  Like any tool, it can be used to accomplish a variety of tasks.  How the tool is applied it critical to the results obtained.  A hammer is equally capable of building a house, or tearing a house down.  Science is perfectly capable of building a rational view of the universe, or of portraying a totally false and indefensible view of the universe.  

Paul Bloom of the Atlantic, wrote, “Sociologists and philosophers deserve a lot of credit in reminding us that scientific practice is permeated by groupthink, bias, and financial, political, and personal motivations.” The physicist Richard Feynman once wrote that the essence of science was “bending over backwards to prove ourselves wrong.” But he was talking about the collective cultural activity of science, not scientists as individuals, most of whom prefer to be proven right, and who are highly biased to see the evidence in whatever light most favors their preferred theory.”(3)

I believe there is sufficient evidence to support the proposition that secular scientists have chosen to use the “hammer” of science in ways that are tearing down the house of humanity.  In future blogs we will discuss ways to apply science more appropriately.

 

“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
    Tell me, if you understand.
 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
    Who stretched a measuring line across it?
 On what were its footings set,
    or who laid its cornerstone—
while the morning stars sang together
    and all the angels[a] shouted for joy?” Job 38:4-7 NIV 

 

(1) opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/05/philosophy-is-not-a-science/

(2) http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Rowlands/Philosophy_vs_Science.shtml

(3) https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/11/why-scientific-faith-isnt-the-same-as-religious-faith/417357/

 

The machine that built itself

silver metal round gears connected to each other
Photo by Flickr on Pexels.com

If God were small enough to be understood, He would not be big enough to be worshiped.”(1) Evelyn Underhill.

Secular scientists and institutions teach that the creation of life on earth was a random, accidental event.  Though such a thing defies all logic and probability, it is nevertheless taught as a supposed “scientific fact”.  In 1993, Michael Behe introduced the concept of irreducible complexity (IC), as a solid proof against evolution (2).  In a variety of manners secular writers have argued against (but never disproven) his initial arguments.  IC is unpopular, but its basic premise is logical, sound, and supportable.  It is in fact infinitely more probable and likely to be true than ANY version of evolution.  And Behe’s resarch is now being validated. Michael Eggnor notes that Behe’s research has contributed to recent Nobel prizes in Biochemistry, and he notes thatNo Nobel Prize has ever been awarded for Darwinian research, and there’s a reason for that. Darwinism denies purpose in biology, and denial of biological purpose is a catastrophic impediment to science.”(3) (This was true at the time it was written.  Further discussion will ensue on the 2018 Nobel Prize in Chemistry)

As science advances, we have found more, not less, evidences of the absolutely enormous complexity of living things. However the answer by secular scientists is always the same… “Evolution must have happened, we just don’t understand it yet”. And there is a certain beauty and elegance to this argument.  It assumes a  positive and growing body of human knowledge, and it assumes the eventual ability of mankind to overcome all obstacles to knowledge… even the knowledge of our very origins.  This, from a humanistic and scientific position, is very appealing. But as we can discuss later, it is also dangerous in its potential for unreasonable pride and arrogance about our limited human abilities. But the question is not whether it is appealing.  Is it true?

There are thousands of incomprehensibly complex systems at the cellular level. Complexity is a hallmark of the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, “Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world.” [4]

Perhaps since the secular academic community has learned to pat itself on the back for mounting a few (albeit weak and insufficient) arguments to Behe’s theory of Irreducible Complexity, we should introduce another concept.  I will call it Absolutely  Incomprehensible Complexity.

You see, the entire idea that humanity can comprehend life or the cosmos is absurd. It is as ridiculous as a machine talking back to it’s maker.  The layers upon layers of complexity represented at every level by DNA, RNA, proteins, fats, glycogen, mitochondria, cell membranes, plasma, electrolytes, semipermeable membranes, and all the necessary substrates for life and growth are quite literally incomprehensible.  Every time biologists find an explanation for one thing, another layer of complexity is found. Science has not brought us closer to understanding the mystery of life.  Science just makes us much more aware of the mysteriousness of life.

When microbiologists and biochemists began to sequence proteins, they found that the proteins function was more from its shape than from its chemical content.  This discovery tell us that minor modifications (evolutionary steps) are virtually impossible in proteins. (Because  one could alter a protein’s shape tens of thousands of ways that make it dysfunctional or even lethal, before finding a single alteration that might have a “new and improved” function.)

Recently it has been discovered that the genetic code of DNA is almost a Rubik’s cube of complexity.  It is so complex that one area of DNA can code for more than one protein, or have multiple expressions.(5)  One cannot randomly alter one, or a few atoms via mutation, without having adverse effects on multiple biologic systems.  If a frog wanted to evolve into a lizard, each step forward could quite literally cause two or three steps backward!  Evolution, as always, cannot withstand the facts.  Life is not just Irreducibly Complex, it is Absolutely Incomprehensibly Complex.

And this is exactly  what we would expect from an infinite, omniscient, and omnipotent Creator God. As the Bible states in John 1: 3 “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

 

(1) https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/14545-if-god-were-small-enough-to-be-understood-he-would

(2) Behe, Michael J. (1996). Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York: Free PressISBN 0-684-82754-9LCCN 96000695OCLC 34150540.

(3) evolutionnews.org/2018/10/behes-irreducible-complexity-validated-by-chemistry-nobel/

(4)Michael Denton, “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,” 1986, p. 250.

(5) https://www.quora.com/How-can-one-gene-code-for-more-than-one-protein-and-how-is-that-process-regulated

 

Chemically impaired? Why not?

white pink and yellow blister packs
Photo by freestocks.org on Pexels.com

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Just a short note to ask a simple question today.

In my job as an Emergency room physician, I frequently see people who are “chemically impaired”.  Opiates,  benzo’s, cocaine, or maybe just THC or alcohol.  Sometimes more than a dozen a day.  Some agitated, aggressive and dangerous… some mellow, sad, and depressed.  Occasionally they arrive hyperactive.  Sometimes they are somnolent and snoring.  And sometimes, in a mood dominated by fatigue more than by compassion, one of the ER nurses will say “There is one more example of survival of the fittest in action.”

And in view of the evolution/creation debate, this raises a question?  Is there anything wrong with substance abuse?  If the universe, and life itself are random accidents, why not “escape” reality every chance we get?  And if it causes pain or suffering or emotional distress to others in our family or our community, so what?  If there is no higher power, and no such thing as religion or spirituality, who cares? Why should a bipedal sentient evolutionary accident care?  What difference does it make to a random collection of molecules?

Evolutionists loudly promulgate their religion in schools and on college campuses.  They label anyone who differs with their agenda as a miscreant, anti-intellectual, anti-science, or at best woefully uninformed.  But why do they care?

Is is because they genuinely care that others might be uninformed or uneducated on the issue?  I don’t believe so.

Is it because they want all the social mores that restrict them from uninhibited sexual expression and substance abuse removed?  Is it because they are offended by the possibility of a God to who they are ultimately accountable? I believe it is.

Rampant uninhibited sexuality and uncontrolled substance abuse are both damaging to society.  They are also both dangerous to the individual.  But if we believe the random nature of existence suggested by evolution and the Big Bang, why does it really matter?

 

The Lord your God is with you. He’s mighty to deliver. He takes great delight in you. He will quiet you with His love. He rejoices over you with singing.” (Zephaniah 3:17)

 

 

 

Everyone has an Attraction!

two people laying on a bed covered with a floral comforter
Photo by rawpixel.com on Pexels.com

Same sex attraction is a big thing these days.  It has divided our country right down the middle, with the tendency to polarize one side against the other.  Each side feels they have the high moral ground and each side often tends to demonize those who believe differently. The saying, “Hate the sin, but love the sinner” makes perfect sense to many conservative Christians, but comes off as judgmental to most liberals. On the other hand, “Gay is the way.” hardly seems like an answer either, and hating Christians because of their beliefs is not any better solution than “hating sinners”.

However homosexuality is just one of many expressions of human sexuality.  Of course we want to avoid insults or judgment of the homosexual community.  But a question arises as to whether that justifies lifting all the Bible’s limitations and proscriptions on sexual activity? If we reject the Bible as authoritative on sexual matters, what authority do we accept?

There is an old saying in Southern Illinois (maybe it’s everywhere). “I guess there’s someone for everybody”. There is a lot of truth to that saying. But it leaves many important questions unanswered.  Is there such a thing as right and wrong types of sexuality?  If same sex attraction is fine, what about other types of attraction?

What if you are are attracted to children?  There is a movement in France to normalize pedophilia. (1) The same is true of Sweden. (2) In fact it seems to be true of much of the EU. (3) It is beyond the scope of this blog to fully discuss the dangers to children or society inherent in these societal trends. But as rational, caring adults we absolutely MUST recognize the necessity of protecting our children from sexual predation! However it should be noted that one of the main things that has prevented the abuse of children for centuries is the Christian worldview. This very same world view is now systematically being destroyed in the name of scientism and secularism.

To look at the issue from a different angle, what if you are attracted to practically every woman (or man) you see?  Does that mean you should be able to have relations with them? Should you be polygamous, or cheat on your spouse, or have kids outside of marriage with dozens of other men or women? If you tire of your spouse, should you move on for sexual excitement?  Should the next edition of the DSM in medicine remove all types of sexual dysfunction from its pages? Is cocaine OK if it leads to better sex or more sex? Should we allow, or even encourage, people to find pleasure and fulfillment in every area of sexual expression, no matter who or what the object of the sexual attraction might be?  Should there be NO limits on human sexuality?

What if you are attracted to certain animals? Does bestiality go “too far”? Not according to Finland. (4) In fact there are still several countries around the globe where it is legal. (5) There have been numerous recent articles about the rise of brothels dedicated to sex with animals in Europe. However this practice is by no means new.  It is almost as old as humankind. Should there be limits on bestiality?

The point of the blog is not to define the limits of human sexuality.  It is merely to state that human sexuality must have limits, and they must somehow be defined.  Science is incapable and insufficient in defining matters of conscience, or morality. Scientism has stated that all such matters as religion and morality are irrelevant. In the past it has been religion or scripture which has typically prescribed these limits. But now, under the lead of secularism and scientism, all limits and even the authority to place limits, have been summarily removed.  There is no God, say the secularists.  So all of God’s rules are just fabrications, nonsense, patently absurd in the new “enlightened age”. Especially those which place limits on our sexual expression.

There is an old proverb, “Be careful what you wish for, lest it come true.”  I think this applies to the desires for sexual freedom that have been the motivation for much of the secular revolution.  Society may have found their freedom.  And in doing so I fear that they may have loosed the worst type of bondage imaginable. I tremble in fear for the most vulnerable members of society if I am correct. Not only that. I fear for the eternal souls of all those who believe they have been freed of all repercussions of their sexual actions and appetites.

 

Matthew 5:28  “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” KJV

Matthew 18:6 “If anyone causes one of these little ones–those who believe in me–to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” NIV

Leviticus 18:23  “Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.” NIV

 

(1) www.sott.net/article/368779-Is-France-Attempting-to-Normalize-Pedophilia

(2) https://neonnettle.com/news/4024-sweden-caught-normalising-pedophilia-with-brochure-promoting-child-marriage

(3) https://justice4poland.com/2015/12/03/germany-and-eu-to-legalize-pedophilia-and-with-it-child-pornography-as-well/

(4) https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/yes_in_finland_you_can_have_sex_with_your_pet/8153974

(5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_bestiality_by_country_or_territory