This category contains 22 posts

Climate Change (& friendly debate)

Climate change. Does it happen? Of course! Is it man-made? The news will tell you the science is settled. Now right off the bat that phrase should concern you. If science is settled, it’s not science. “Settled science” is anti-science as it disuades further study. Actual science welcomes new ideas and debate.

In my studies I quickly learned that when the news media reports a science story they normally quote mine for a juicy quote that will create clicks. (Click bait). The quote is normally part of the story, but when I would go to read the actual study or article the news report was based on I would find that the results did not infer the attention grabbing headline. Sometimes the complete opposite.

You see news sells through controversy. If they can get a heated debate going in the comments, thats a LOT of clicks. AND since news sells science, studies that report controversy get more funding. If you see anything or anyone saying “science has proven…”, ask for your money back. Science doesn’t prove anything. Science disproves or rules out possibilities to make the hypothesis more likely.

Climate change occurs, but the actual science as to what causes it (if you read it) is incredibly mixed and far from any consensus. Then you have to consider the political agenda. Fear sells in Democratic politics. We need bigger government to protect us from ourselves. There’s always an angle. Follow the money.

Does man cause climate change? You could possibly say that. Man rebelled against God. God sent a massive flood which enacted all weather calamities to follow. Every weather event today can trace its roots back to the flood. Does that mean God is punishing people for their sins today through hurricanes? No. It means we live in a world where hurricanes happen because we live in a broken world in need of a savior.

Do we need to take care of our planet? Absolutely! But God has already told us how it all ends, and it’s not from man made climate change. Do not buy into the fear.



The following is an exchange I had with someone on Facebook after I posted this to my personal profile.  Their comments are in bold.


Sooo because God is going to end the world and not climate change (even though lots of people die in God’s ending… Earthquakes that shake the entire planet and all) We should take care of our planet but not believe we did it because skepticism. 

I am a scientist. My work, my life is based on the physical universe God made. Did man contribute to climate change in a way that has heated the oceans and melted glaciers? Yes. That is something that science has in fact lead towards the most likely possibility. Has the planet been getting “better” since we as humans have been fighting our man-made contribution to climate change? Yes!! Check out the story of refrigerants we used to use that were messing up the molecular make-up of our atmosphere.

Does this post spur humans to act because of their mistakes? No. As much as the news bugs me because I read the studies not just listen/watch the news. Their panic sells, but also their panic that they have whipped the public into has done good things. It has informed the public/senators to do something about it. Which is a main contribution to “green” energy. Does money change the hearts and minds of politicians? Yes. It is always some seedy organisation looking to just get rich? Not always. Also if you can make money on making the planet a better place that is the whole point right. Using our natural resources costs something. It is not free. We should use our economy to save our planet. We should use our political system to help fix the molecular make up of the atmosphere when we send it out of whack with our economy and policies. 

Politics and economics are not bad things in themselves. Try not to demonize them when we talk about solutions to real problems.


I’m against the fear mongering that’s all. I’m for truth. First truth says we are not the cause of the demise of this planet. We may have done some things that have hurt the environment and we should work to fix those when we learn of them as much as possible. You say fear produces action and so is justified. I think it produces fake or short lived action. I believe truth produces the most actions. When someone believes something undoubtedly, they will stop at nothing. But…if you don’t have enough truth, fear can be a helpful seller. Again, we need a bigger government to protect us from our stupidity…and we’ll pay them more to do it to.

Just as there are studies you can cite showing man made climate change, there are studies I can cite showing the opposite. Study bashing is boring and doesn’t prove or do anything. But how can there be studies that show opposites. You know it happens all the time, right? My theory is human bias.


 I have read studies on both sides, but I also know it is not just throwing studies back and forth it is the overwhelming evidence that leads to the conclusion humans have unequivocally been a leading contribution to climate change. Did we do it alone? No. Did we do a large percentage of it? Yes. I have a deep rooted belief in our flaws as humans. Scientists believe the truth of their study. Humans on the other hand most often have apathy for the situation unless you can prove how it harms them individually because we are selfish creatures. So your belief in the goodness of man to fix their wrong when pointed out to them in my life has been proved to be wrong. Your faith in humanity is wasted. We suck. We don’t care. We would party into our own destruction. It is the job of those that fight for truth to be applied to these apathetic humans. The only way to get an apathetic human to do anything is by fear.

I am against fear mongering as well, but I am not the only fighter. I fight for local changes. I am not a national fighter as much as I disagree with their practices. They get results. Solar credits have not only made solar competitive, but it has driven down costs of manufacturing and dropped money in the market to make it profitable without credits. So in that case a short term solution lead to a long term solution.

Also I never said if fear produces action it is justified. I said I don’t have an issue with it because I am down here fighting to fix our planet from apathetic jerks. I am too busy to fix the fear that media makes money off of. I would rather solve real problems like people losing their homes on the coast due to ocean waters increasing in temperature and height.
If you have an army of undoubting believers you can do amazing things, but just like Christianity has Christians who are apathetic to their community and only care about their personal salvation. You are never gonna find that.

Your human bias of studies is white washed out of meta studies of climate change studies that agree HUMANS ARE A LEADING CONTRIBUTION TO CLIMATE CHANGE. Meta studies are a study of all the studies. They collect all the data and come their own conclusion with all the data and it is that conclusion.


I always take issue with studies and conclusions based on extrapolations. Even if man is contributing now, it requires extrapolations to come to the conclusion that it will severely harm the environment. I understand the logic of that, but reality infers that so many unknowns factors can majorly change the conclusion.

For example, the age of the Earth is calculated using extrapolations. Rocks decay at a given rate today, using that rate and extrapolating into the past we get an age of 4.5 billion years. But that extrapolation ignores any Biblical possiblities that God intervened in the process and/or created things in an aged state necessary for the immediate sustaining of life. Studies that extrapolate make sense logically, but they don’t necessarily equal truth.


Yeah your interpretation of the Bible and how God could have interacted with the physical world is not something we agree on so I don’t think it is a good point to work off of. 
I believe the Bible. I believe God created the cosmos. I also believe thata new earth creationism doesn’t make sense to what the world around us tells us. God’s world. Words can be interpreted in many different ways, but scientific constants and laws of the universe can’t really be interpreted any other way. I choose to bend language and explode my imagination and God’s power rather than limiting humans understanding of the universe God made. God is crazy awesome. I believe he is capable of interacting in our world without it having to go against what we have observed in his physical universe.

After all it says God created the universe and everything in it. Next big event garden stuff

Not God created the universe then changed the constants of his universe so some sticklers to my word that only wish to read the stories literally can age out the world.


What it says is God created in six days, made Adam on the sixth day, then gives a 4000 year geneology from Adam to Jesus who lived 2000 years ago. To come to any other conclusion is to force your own interpretation onto the text. I do not believe there is a single piece of evidence against a young earth perspective. Of course their are faulty interpretations based on extrapolations that ignore the Bible as a historical record.

That’s my point. You can ignore certain evidences and make extrapolations to give you conclusions that may not be true. I believe that happens with the age of the Earth looking backwards and climate change looking forwards.


I don’t think Genesis is meant to be literal history. That is our different perspectives. I think it is a story we can learn from. I have never thought we should take it literally because it doesn’t make sense literally. I believe God meant to make sense not to change. He is immutable.

 I am not ignoring the genealogy when I take it as a story, it just doesn’t mean as much to me as it does to you.


You don’t think Genesis is meant to be taken as literal history because of your preexisting belief in an old earth and evolution. You recognize the two are telling different stories and you side with consensus science despite the continual warnings in the scripture about siding with man. I’m not anti science, I’m pro truth and that requires looking at all angles. If you interpret the evidence in the world using Genesis as your hypothesis, then it all lines up. There is no need to interpret it as allegory.


how do you know with 100% certainty you are not forcing a perspective on the text that is just not there. Like what if God’s day in Genesis is not our day? A day is a revolution around the sun, but the sun had not been created yet so you are forcing a definition that had not been defined yet.

If Genesis is allegory it still lines up with science. There is no conflict. I didn’t have to change any definitions. I just read the text and looked at the world and made sense of it.


A day is not a revolution around the sun, it is a spinning on its own axis. A sun is not required.


Sorry let me correct myself. How can you have a day a revolution without a starting point? The sun


I can spin a ball without another ball in the room.


Yes but a spin is marked by a beginning and end which is the sun. If you just spin with no reference there is no start or stop. Without a reference point a day without the sun could be 10,000 years.

Also let’s poke holes in Noah for a sec. A boat with a buoyancy described in the Bible could not take the weight of the animals also described in the Bible. This math has been done. So unless God intervened which is not directly mentioned it is not possible. Therefore allegory to destruction with water.

I take God as he states with the logic he has given me. He gave me science and other humans to work out his wonders. I can read biologists work and marvel at God and his works. I can read work on geologists and marvel at the system that protects the squishy humans that live on this planet. I take their work and marvel at God’s work rather than scoffing at the ingenuity of their discoveries because it doesn’t match my narrow minded view of God that I got from a word that has been translated out of its original culture and language.

I am pro truth. I am pro God and his works in the world. The problem I have with your skepticism is it bashes the beauty that is God’s world and natural revelation. You can find God in two ways. Thru the Bible and thru his creation. By using only the Bible all those people that have never heard the word get to be condemned. Rather than opening up to the possibility God can work outside of his Word in the physical universe he created.
As for the spinning thing, you might have a point there – but you also have to take into account that the first thing God created was a light source (not the Sun). If we compare that to other scriptures about God being a light, we can assume this light came directly from him. So yes, the Earth had a light source to use to calculate a day.

As for the Ark, I’ve not actually heard this claim before. How many animals are the supposing was on the Ark? The normal claim I hear is between 1-2000 with the Ark being capable of holding close to 100,000. I know of another feasibility study (done by a secular university) that showed the Ark would have worked.

I don’t want you to get the assumption that because I am a creationist I am missing out on the wonders of science. To me, becoming a creationist opened up science to an amazing degree I never thought possible. Now it has meaning and purpose behind it, instead of mindless and accidental. I’m glad you find wonder in science. I would never want that to change. I believe we are to study the earth and figure out more things about how it works, but not to trump God’s definitive word on the matter. His word is the ultimate authority and the final say on all matters.

Here’s the biggest issue with evolutionary science. If it is true, then God created cancer and called it “very good”. If the 4.5 billion years of creation has to be fit into the creation week of Genesis allegorically, then so does all the history of pain, disease, suffering, and death. Then after the creation, God calls it all “very good”. If you go with my understanding, God does create a world “very good”, free of pain and suffering. Man brings those things into the creation. So the big question is: is God to blame for creating the world this way, or did we mess it up? If you believe in evolution, you have no choice but to blame God. BUT this goes against so much of his character and invalidates so many passages.

I do not mind entertaining other interpretations, but if they create contradictions with later passages – that is where I draw the line. God’s word can’t have contradictions or it is no longer God’s word. God’s word calls death an enemy. So is it an enemy or part of the process of creation and “very good”? Which is it?


The church’s moment of truth!


It has taken me a little while to collect my thoughts on this subject before I responded. It is a BIG topic. I’m not going to spend any time defending the Biblical view on traditional marriage. I’ve already done that. I’m just going to provide a reaction.

In the recent unsurprising historic Supreme Court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage, it’s been little noted that it was 5 for, 4 against.  In an unusual turn of event all four Justices that were against wrote letters of dissent.  Here are some interesting quotes I found from those letters…

Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.” – Justice Roberts

States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices’ ‘reasoned judgment.'” – Justice Scalia

Liberty has long been understood as individual freedom from government action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement.” – Justice Thomas

Even enthusiastic supporters of same-sex marriage should worry about the scope of the power that today’s majority claims.  Today’s decision shows that decades of attempts to restrain this Court’s abuse of its authority have failed.”  –  Justice Alito

The mighty power that was Rome fell due to a fall of morality, a corruption of government, and persecution of Christians.  We are doing a fabulous job following in their footsteps. If you are like me you are amazed at the amount of people in support of the decision who you thought were Christians. The Barna Research Group did a quick response to the Supreme Court ruling to find out how Evangelical Christians felt vs. those with “no faith” or other faiths.

Nearly all theologically defined evangelicals say they are not in favor of the Court’s decision (94%) – more than twice the proportion among the general population (43%) and even significantly more than the practicing Christians segment (66%). Only 2 percent of evangelicals say they support the decision to legalize same-sex marriage. They are also much more likely to say same-sex marriage will have a negative impact on society (86% vs. 40% among all U.S. adults), to believe extending marriage rights was morally right (10% vs. 52%) and to say same-sex marriage rights are protected by the Constitution (15% vs. 52%).”

This is another turning point for the church in the sexual revolution that began in the 1960’s. Opponents of our view rightly point out that we dropped the ball on the rise of divorce, cohabitation, pornography, etc. Will the church do what it has unfortunately normally done and continue to fall back into obscurity and cultural irrelevance or will it seize this opportunity to come together as one and let our 94% voice be heard?

The other BIG question is: will this victory be it for the same-sex movement? If marriage is what they wanted, they got it. I fear what they really want is to change the mind of every person who disagrees. They don’t really just want tolerance, they want conformity. “Love wins”. In other words, if you disagree – you are against love. That’s not really fighting fair is it? This has nothing to do with love. I personally do not agree 100% on everything with anyone. Does that mean I don’t love ANYONE? Of course not. Disagreeance is part of life, and it’s a part of being a melting pot of various cultures and beliefs. I believe THAT is what they really want to change.

I’m not too concerned for actual churches who disagree or ministers who won’t marry gay couples. I don’t see that becoming an issue for a while. People have been harping on the separation of church and state for so long that now they will have to respect it the other way around. BUT as was mentioned before the Supreme Court – what about a Christian college that accepts federal grant money or student aid or doesn’t allow openly homosexual students to house together… what will happen to them? The court admitted – this will be a problem. That is where the problems are going to start arising. Will tolerance swing both ways? Why don’t I think it will?

As a Biblical Christian, I have read the end of the story. I realize that things must get much, much worse than this for the end to come. I’m surprised it is happening so fast, but all the more opportunity to practice GRACE WITH SALT. Grace to everyone! We are all sinners, and no sin is greater than another. But don’t leave out the salt. We are the salt of the earth. We need to represent the truth. But there needs to be a balance to it. Too much salt in your meal and you will spit it out of your mouth, too little – and it is bland. But the right balance is perfect!

“Boycott this Song” [liberal Christianity’s nightmare]

Homeschool vs. Public School


When I began my freshman year in college, I already knew my major: elementary education.  I wanted to work with 8 to 10 year olds in the public school sector.  After my junior year, I took the summer break to work as a counselor at a Christian camp working with 8 to 10 year olds.  I realized that although I loved working with kids, my passion was ministry not simply education.  I took another year and finished up my degree as a general ed degree.  After that I worked full time in a public school as a teacher’s assistant for five years.  During this time my faith in the public school system was crushed.  I saw a diploma mill only concerned with numbers and filled with burnout teachers, unmotivated kids, crooked administrators, unrealistic expectations, compromised security, confusing rules, and so much more.

While observing all this, my wife was trying to convince me to let her homeschool our children.  Initially I was against it for all the same reasons you normally hear:  socialization problems, access to programs, etc.  After all these experiences listed above, I agreed… and it was the best decision I could have done. My kids absolutely love reading and science, they understand discipline, and they understand how faith in God works into every aspect and subject of life.

According to the Bible the education of children is the duty of the parents.  This, in and of itself, does not mean that homeschooling is for everyone – but it should obviously be a viable option at least.  Many parents do not want to because they believe that they are not qualified.  From my experience I can tell you that the main qualification you need is: patience, and then possibly organization.  Studies have shown that parents who are certified educators versus non-certified parents do not affect their children’s learning.    Some parents believe they will not be able to do it financially.  The main cost for homeschooling is pulling one parent away from a job.  This is a considerable cost.  One will have to weigh whether the results outweigh the cost.  For many, this will not even be a possibility; for others it will take a sacrifice.

Many people believe that homeschooled students somehow receive a subpar education.  This is simply incorrect.  In fact, it may quite be the opposite.  Studies have shown (see below infographic) that where the average public school student scores in the 50 percentile on standardized tests, homeschooled students score in the mid 80 percentile.  It is the difference between individualized attention versus the herd mentality of education.  Another main argument is socialization.  Many people say “homeschooled kids won’t know how to socialize like other kids”.  I say “PRAISE GOD!”  I don’t want my kid socializing like most kids I see.  As long as the parent makes sure to keep the kids active in church activities, field trips with other homeschool groups, community events, and other outside activities – the child will have no more problems with socialization than any other kid… in fact may be better off.  Another study concluded that where the average public school student scored a 95.08 in tests of socialization, homeschooled kids scored 109.50.

I once heard it said: if a kid hears about Biblical history and standards in Sunday school, and then hears a different history and set of standards the other five days a week by which they are tested on – how does that affect their view of church and faith?  Christian families need to be sure that their children understand that God is at work in every subject of education.  By excluding him, you are getting an untrue and subpar education.  Again, I realize homeschooling is not an option to every family, but those families are going to have to work overtime to reinterpret what their kids are learning from a Biblical perspective.  I would also add that if you feel called to homeschooling, but are unsure of how to make it work – God will make a way.

Proverbs 19:27 says “Cease, my son, to hear the instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge.”  Today’s public schools, under the current common core philosophy and other earlier programs, is driving teachers away in droves.  Teachers that remain are slowly becoming robotic slaves to an un-customizable curriculum.  The Bible makes it very clear that education is supposed to include God in every area (see this site for references: http://homeschoolenrichment.com/articles/view/education-the-bible-has-more-to-say-than-you-think).  Our current school system says that it does not allow religious influence in order to keep neutral, but Christians will realize real quickly that there is no such thing as neutral when it comes to religion.  Jesus says in Matthew 12:30 “whoever is not with me is against me”.  The public school system is not a religiously neutral system.  It teaches millions of children each year the disguised religion of secular humanism which is self-contradicting.  The whole religion relies on the aspect that there is no absolute truth.  Well… that statement in and of itself is an absolute truth claim!  And… why would I want to send my kids to a school that doesn’t believe in standards of truth??  The public school system is failing because it does not stand for anything, and therefore falls for everything.  Homeschool enrollment is skyrocketing!

I recently heard an educator say that they hold “don’t drink and drive” seminars to their kids.  They can’t say that drinking and driving is “wrong” (because there is no measure of right/wrong without God), they must only say that it is dangerous.  How confusing is this for our kids?  Couple this with parents who are either not involved or kept out of the loop by a silent child and you have a recipe for disaster!  I thank God that He pulled me out of what may have become a very frustrating career in the current education system.  I thank God that He gave me the faith to trust in a homeschooling option I wasn’t fully comfortable with at the time.  The rewards have been innumerable!  Proverbs 22:6, “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.”

See the following infographic for more info on comparison numbers between homeschooled and public school student with sources:


Naturalism IS Atheism

sun beems

Thought for the day:

Naturalism is atheism. Atheism is a religion. Schools teach naturalism. Therefore, schools teach religion. Separation of church and state is impossible.

Your children’s education is YOUR responsibility.  Not the states.  I understand that the biggest area of contention here may be “atheism is a religion”.  According to dictionary.com’s 2nd definition, a religion is simply “details of beliefs as taught or discussed.”  Naturalism is the belief that the universe/world came into existence without the necessity of a designer.  Discuss in the comments.

Answering skeptics: Postmodernism and absolute truth


Postmodernism has been a topic I have wanted to write about for quite a while now.  I believe it is the root of many of the issues in the church today.  Wikipedia defines postmodernism broadly as “a skeptical interpretive stance through which to view any product of human culture.”  The article goes on to say “postmodernism take the relativistic position that there is no absolute truth.”  This is a big problem for the church.  Obviously the Bible claims to be the one supreme truth.  Jesus makes no hesitation in claiming that he is the only true path to God (John 14:6).  Therefore to a Christian, right off the bat, post modernistic techniques which look to skeptically reinterpret Biblical claims ought to be rejected.

Let me preface this next section by explaining that I do not think it is unhealthy to question things in the Bible.  For me, questioning the Bible has been the times I have grown the most.  People oftentimes become overwhelmed with the amount of skeptical material available.  There are tons of websites devoted to “debunking” the Bible.  They list pages of information that most often make claims of apparent contradiction upon contradiction in the text.  If the text contradicts itself it, it cannot be reliable information right? Unfortunately a lot of skeptics end their search here feeling fulfilled that their questioning was valid.  Here’s where human nature plays in.  If we can find anyway to show something in the Bible incorrect, then we don’t have to be held accountable for that!  We have an invested desire to show it false, therefore we jump at any explanation we find that settles it for us.  What those that do this do not realize is that it is just as easy to Google “answers to Biblical contradictions”.  If you study those answers what you will realize real quickly is that a contradiction needs to be proven.  If there is any other possible and rational explanation, then a contradiction is not proven.  A lot of the claimed contradictions do not take the timeframe culture into account and many ignore context clues that answer the contradiction.

Christianity is a religion about surrender.  It is all about surrendering our ideas about how we think the world SHOULD work to the revelation in the scriptures about how it DOES work.  Absolute truth most certainly exists.  If you are of the camp that says “I don’t believe in absolute truth”, I can simply turn around and ask you if that statement is absolutely true or not!  It is a laughable and untenable position to hold.  For those who claim it does not exit, they are left with the unanswerable question of under what situations is sexual abuse of a child acceptable.  It is much more defendable to say: under no conditions is it ever alright to sexually abuse a child.  Absolute truth exists.

Let’s look at some examples of how postmodernism has infiltrated the church.  Obviously on this site we deal with the creation/evolution debate quite a bit.  Adherents to Christianity tend to try and get skeptics to compromise the Bible from the very first chapters.  If they can successfully show that the Bible is not reliable from the very beginning, then they can start to convince you of the rest little by little.  When you destroy the foundations, the house crumbles eventually.  The Bible, in and of itself, obviously describes a rapid creation within recent history.  In fact the timeline is extremely well documented.  It takes outside influence to come to any other conclusion about history.  A Christian is going to have to decide what they believe about the Bible in general.  Is it the word of God or the word of man?  If you are of the camp that it is the word of man – how do you determine what parts should affect your lifestyle and which you can discard?  It sounds to me as if it would leave it up to personal preference.  I don’t think truth works like that.  As someone who already faithfully accepts the miraculous salvation story of Jesus based on the written record in the Bible, I see no reason to reject other parts of it equally unseen by my own eyes.  I find it much more religiously safe and intellectually defendable to simply accept the Bible as absolute truth then to decide for myself which parts are true or not.  I cannot defend my belief in Jesus consistently while rejecting something like the flood.  I would not be taken serious in a real debate.  Of course I do not believe things should be accepted blindly either.  I’ve written over 150 articles about how to defend the Bible from the very first chapters.  I have seen no theological or scientific reason to reject anything written in the Bible while at the same time finding bountiful information that keeps confirming the scriptures over and over.

Another area postmodernism is infiltrating the church is in the debate over homosexuality.  There are some who would actually construct arguments to show that the Bible never meant to be against it.  The Bible read plainly is obviously not supportive of same-sex unions.  If postmodernists can twist something so obvious to say the exact opposite, isn’t it apparent that they could then twist ANYTHING?

Take the flood.  Postmodernists have reinterpreted the flood as a local flood instead of global.  That invalidates the entire story.  Water covered all the high hills… and then what dropped off??  Everything with the breath of life in it outside the ark was destroyed… except what 100 miles away??  I will destroy this creation I made… except what everything outside 100 miles is fine?  Collect two of every animal… why not just move them out of the flood region??  No.  I have no problem with different interpretations as long as they are consistent with all other scriptures and do not purposely create contradictions.

To sum it all up, postmodernists are seekers.  They want the truth, but are not sure of how to find it.  They turn their ears to any doctrine that seems to match how they already view the world.  If they personally think homosexuality is acceptable, then they are going to reject any doctrine stating otherwise.  But how do they know if the doctrine they just rejected IS the truth?  They’ve biased out the truth in exchange for something that will confirm their starting assumptions.  But if God is real and does rule this universe, do you really think that is the accurate way to come to the truth?  In other words – is the truth supposed to change you, or are you supposed to change the truth?  The Bible talks about this revisionist history subject in 2 Timothy 4:3 – “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.  When Jesus was ever confronted with those wishing to change his stances, his response was always “it is written” taking everything back to the scriptures – let’s do the same!