Repent Labs

Become a bold Christian that plunders Satan’s kingdom.

There are many people, both “Christians” and unbelievers, who actually try to claim that the Bible condones abortion, even approves of it. This is a big claim, so let’s see if it has any teeth.

1. God Flooded the Earth

Genesis 7:21–24

And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all mankind...He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark…

God is the giver of life, and the taker of life. He has every right and authority to judge his people when they are rebelling against him. We, as humans, are not the giver of life and God has commanded us not to murder and commit child sacrifice.

2. God Commanded Israel to Kill the Canaanites

Deuteronomy 20:16–18

But in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall devote them to complete destruction, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the LORD your God has commanded, that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods, and so you sin against the LORD your God.

God is the standard of justice. It would have been immoral for them not to kill the canaanites since God commanded them to. The same God who commanded that we ought not to take a human life unjustly, commanded Israel to justly take a certain people groups lives. What does that tell you about the canaanites? It’s funny how we rush to the rescue of sinful people and call God unjust.

3. God Told Abraham to Sacrifice Isaac

Genesis 22:6–14

…Abraham built the altar there and laid the wood in order and bound Isaac his son and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. Then Abraham reached out his hand and took the knife to slaughter his son. But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven and said, “Abraham, Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” He said, “Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.” And Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him was a ram, caught in a thicket by his horns…”

This was a prophecy for the coming of Christ (the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world). Abraham was already promised by God that through Isaac his offspring would come. Since God can’t lie, Abraham simply trusted that God would resurrect him. God then provided a substitute ram in place of Isaac, prophesying the provision of Jesus that would later come to be our substitute so that we could no longer be in Adam, but in Christ.

4. The Bible Says Life Begins at First Breath

Genesis 2:7

then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.

Just because Adams life began when God breathed life into him, it doesn’t follow that all human life begins at first breath. Eve was made from Adams rib, but it doesn’t follow that all women are generated from male ribs today. There were simply no humans to reproduce in the beginning, you have to start somewhere.

However, we have plenty of scripture regarding when human life post Adam and Eve begins.

Psalm 139:13–16

For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.

Psalm 51:5

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Jeremiah 1:5

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

Luke 1:39–45

In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a town in Judah, and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.”

Genesis 25:22

The children struggled together within her, and she said, “If it is thus, why is this happening to me?” So she went to inquire of the LORD.

5. God Commands Fine For Miscarriage (Exodus 21)

Exodus 21:22–25

“When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

The only time someone tries to use this verse as justifying abortion is with the translations that say “so that she miscarries.” This is not the original text, it is a modern interpretation. The Hebrew and Greek of the original words translate to “The child comes out”, which means premature birth.

The ironic thing is, this passage actually shows that an accidental abortion is worthy of death in God’s eyes. How much more the intentional legal ones that happen every day in the U.S?

6. God Commanded Child Sacrifice (Exodus 22:29)

Exodus 22:29–30

“You shall not delay to offer from the fullness of your harvest and from the outflow of your presses. The firstborn of your sons you shall give to me. You shall do the same with your oxen and with your sheep: seven days it shall be with its mother; on the eighth day you shall give it to me.

This is a misreading of the text. When read with Ex 13:13-15 and Numbers 3:46-51, it’s clear that the first born males were to be redeemed by a monetary sacrifice, not killed.

Exodus 13:13–15

Every firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb, or if you will not redeem it you shall break its neck. Every firstborn of man among your sons you shall redeem. And when in time to come your son asks you, ‘What does this mean?’ you shall say to him, ‘By a strong hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt, from the house of slavery. For when Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the LORD killed all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man and the firstborn of animals. Therefore I sacrifice to the LORD all the males that first open the womb, but all the firstborn of my sons I redeem.’

Numbers 3:46–51

And as the redemption price for the 273 of the firstborn of the people of Israel, over and above the number of the male Levites, you shall take five shekels per head; you shall take them according to the shekel of the sanctuary (the shekel of twenty gerahs), and give the money to Aaron and his sons as the redemption price for those who are over.” So Moses took the redemption money from those who were over and above those redeemed by the Levites. From the firstborn of the people of Israel he took the money, 1,365 shekels, by the shekel of the sanctuary. And Moses gave the redemption money to Aaron and his sons, according to the word of the LORD, as the LORD commanded Moses.

In fact, the following passages make it painfully clear that God detests child sacrifice.

Jeremiah 19:3–5

Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: Behold, I am bringing …

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.repentlabs.com/subscribe

In a previous post, I exposed what an abortion actually is. The abortion pill, the D&C, and the D&E. As we saw, it’s a horror movie in real life. However, even though we know it’s bloody, we need to ask this question;

What does God think of abortion?

There are many people who profess to be Christian who try to say that “the Bible doesn’t speak about abortion specifically.” “Show me the passage” they’ll say. Some even say the Bible condones abortion (we’ll get to that later).

Let’s explore these claims and see if they survive under the fire.

Humans Have Value

First, let’s look at human life. As Humans, we are made in the image of God and therefore have dignity and value by nature. We are like God, and distinctly unique. This should already cause us to look at the way we treat each other differently than animals.

26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness. They will rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the livestock, the whole earth, and the creatures that crawl on the earth.”

27 So God created man in his own image;

he created him in the image of God;

he created them male and female.

Ge 1:26–27

Moving further, God even mentions that humans have “rights.” Although we have no rights before God, we do have rights among men. We’ll get into the civil application later, but look how these verses mention default “rights” that humans have.

Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine, and valiant men in mixing strong drink, who acquit the guilty for a bribe, and deprive the innocent of his right!

Proverbs 31:8–9

Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all who are destitute. Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy.

Isaiah 5:22–23

So humans are made in the image of God and have inherent rights that we would see to be different than animals and other creatures that God made. We are also individually commanded to love our neighbor as ourself (Matt 22:39), and not to murder (Ex 20:13).

It’s clear that biblically, we have a right to life (amongst men), we are commanded to not murder anyone, and we are commanded to love others as ourselves.

All of these things rest on the truth of being a human. So if that’s the case, then when does human life begin?

When Does Human Life Begin?

Contrary to our pro-choice friend’s colossal claims, it is a biological fact that human life begins at fertilization. This is not disputable.

“At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature.”

So, we know that human life begins at conception, and we know abortion is the taking of human life unjustly, and we know that humans have a right to life. So what does that mean? Abortion is murder. Does God approve of murder? No.

“God’s Talking About Adults”

Some may argue that God is referring to adults / born people throughout scripture. Well, there is nothing in the bible that gives us an indication that the pre-born person is anything less than a person. In fact, God gives even more protection to pre-born babies as we’ll see here.

“When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Exodus 21:22–25

A couple translations translate it as “has a miscarriage” but that is an interpretation, not a translation. The act discussed is simply the child being born prematurely. The literal Hebrew is “The child goes out.”

The word for “miscarriage” and for “dead fetus” are not found in this passage. We first see that if the baby is born prematurely, yet, there is no harm to either the Mother or the child, there will be a fine. But if there is harm, to either the mother or the child, given the state that we have a mother who is with child, it’s eye for eye.

Which means, the bible says that even the accidental abortion of a pre-born baby constitutes life for life. “You shall not murder…” is already more than enough to condemn abortion, but God takes it up a notch and says: Even if your abortion pill was swallowed by accident, you’ve forfeited your life

Accidental Killing

In God’s law, if the killing of someone was an accident, it wouldn’t be deserving of the death penalty like intentional murder. A good passage that gives us some detail on this is Numbers 35:11–28.

then you shall select cities to be cities of refuge for you, that the manslayer who kills any person without intent may flee there…

But if he struck him down with an iron object, so that he died, he is a murderer. The murderer shall be put to death…”

Numbers 35:11–28

Here’s the interesting part. If the mother didn’t have a child in her womb, and was just an ordinary citizen, then accidentally killing her wouldn’t be worthy of the death penalty. However, we just saw in the above passages that accidentally killing the child in the womb is indeed worthy of the death penalty. (Ex 21:23–25)

That means that the pre-born baby gets special protection that an adult does not have. That is absolutely terrifying considering that America is slaughtering 1,000,000 babies every year, who if were all killed accidentally, would require blood. How much more that all 1,000,000 of those are intentional. The evil of child sacrifice in our culture is absolutely gruesome.

Is Abortion Ever Justified?

When is it legitimate to take the life of a human being? The bible gives us 3 explicit categories.

* Public justice (Capital punishment)

* Lawful war (Just war)

* Necessary defense (Self defense)

Do any of those categories fit in with abortion? Let’s try it out.

Is abortion capital punishment? - Of course not, a fetus cannot be convicted of a crime, so therefore, it cannot be punished.

Is abortion condoned in a lawful war? - No, you do not declare war on an unborn child. It doesn’t make sense to declare war on a specific child.

Self Defense - Maybe its self defense?

Some will argue that if the life of the mother is at stake, the doctors are doing their duty to intentionally murder the baby. If the mother died because of our inaction, we would be guilty.

In the plea of self defense, there is an action of aggression towards the victim. But in the case of the pre-born baby, there is no aggression towards the mother. In scripture, self defense is applied to instances of assault.

“If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed.

Exodus 22:2–3

If someone breaks into your home to steal at nighttime, the Bible indicates you have every right to kill that thief in self defense because at night you do not know what his intentions are. But in the day time specifically, this is not the case. We can see this is a very specific circumstance of self defense that is given.

The pre-born fetus does not apply to this case, because it is not an act of aggression.

The reality is, if this is self defense, then you’d have to charge the assailant. If the baby lives but the mother dies, would you take the baby to court? Self defense is out of the question here.

Also on your skirts is found the lifeblood of the guiltless poor; you did not find them breaking in. Yet in spite of all these things you say, ‘I am innocent; surely his anger has turned from me.’ Behold, I will bring you to judgment for saying, ‘I have not sinned.’

Jeremiah 2:34–35

Jeremiah is saying, while Israel makes the claim they killed in self defense, God will hold them accountable for their blood guilt of those they’ve killed. The key is, he references the Ex 22…

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.repentlabs.com/subscribe

Become a Bold Christian that plunders satan’s kingdom

Today, I’m going to address a common misunderstanding I’ve heard about God’s judgement. Our “deconstruction” friends who think the “God of the bible is a total jerk” for sending Israel to kill nations don’t like the idea of God judging anyone, for anything, at any time.

There’s 1 fundamental problem that isn’t accounted for on this view; humans are not innocent.

In this episode I’m going to tackle what judgement is, why it’s required, and how if you believe in right and wrong, you believe in judgement.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.repentlabs.com/subscribe

I’ve started a new project entitled “Aborted - Revealing the Horror of Child Sacrifice and the 2nd Holocaust.”

The full project will be released in a couple months, and will be published on it’s very own website. My goal is for the project to be a resource for Christians to be equipped in fighting the 2nd holocaust so we can abolish abortion in America.

Until it’s finished, I’ll be releasing content from it as I create it, and today I’m going to cover what actually happens in an abortion procedure.

Warning…I cover graphic material.

Sources

The Abortion Pill

D&C Abortion

D&E Abortion

Planned Parenthood Marketing

"When Human Life Begins" - American College of Pediatricians – March 2017

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.repentlabs.com/subscribe

Many atheists claim that evolution is a proven scientific fact. If you disagree, they usually laugh, and go on to say things like:

“You’re one of those Bible thumpers aren’t you? You believe Noah and the arc too, right?”

But what if I told you that evolution was such a bad theory, that if an 8th grader presented it for his final project, he would get expelled from school for how irrational it was?

Well, that’s true. Today, we’re going to conclude our 9-part "Devolved" series by simply granting that evolution is true and seeing where it takes us.

Buckle up my friend.

Recent Posts from the Devolved Series

* The Religion of Evolution: Devolved Part 1

* Billions of Years Nonsense: Devolved Part 2

* The Big Bang Refutes Itself: Devolved Part 3

* Evolution Can’t Even Start: Devolved Part 4

* The Fossil Record Should Terrify You: Devolved Part 5

* Dinosaurs Less Than 10,000 Years Old: Devolved Part 6

* Sex for No Reason: Devolved Part 7

* Survival of the Survivors: Devolved Part 8

I make Repent Labs free for everyone so we can boldly defend Christ. To support my work, consider a paid subscription if you are in a position to. Either way, thanks for reading!

Recap of What We've Learned

So far in this series, we've learned that evolution is a religion, not a scientific theory. We then learned that the evidence confirms a young universe, not a 14-billion year old one. We also learned that even if we granted the Big Bang to be true, it wouldn’t have happened.

After that, we found out that it was mathematically and chemically improbable to get life from non-life.

After that, we took a look at the fossil record and saw that it doesn't confirm evolution, it confirms the judgement of God at the global flood.

As if that wasn't enough, we took a look at dinosaurs and found out all of them are less than 10,000 years old, and that secular dating methods are based off of false assumptions.

After that, we learned that if evolution were true, we should have never evolved sex organs. And then, we took a look at how survival of the fittest ends up being circular.

But, there’s still one more thing that needs to be addressed.

Today, I’m going to assume that I’ve been wrong about everything so far. Seriously. I’m not joking.

Let's Be Generous

I’m going to wave the white flag and give Darwin his temporary victory. Let's say that every single step of the evolutionary philosophy is 100% true.

Let's say that:

* Once upon a time, there was disorder.

* We don't know why, but that disorder became orderly.

* This ordered matter was inorganic, and, for reasons we don't know, it became living matter.

* Then, mysteriously and without explanation, this living matter which was made up of identical forms, began to diversify.

* From these diversified forms, for reasons we cant explain, they became varied but unintelligent.

* After this, the unintelligent life forms became intelligent and articulate, for reasons we do not know.

* Once this was accomplished, the intelligent articulate lifeforms miraculously began to use language.

* And of course from there, not that we have an explanation of course, the language using lifeforms, became moral men.

So, if that’s what happened…that means that everything we see in the universe is just matter in motion. There are no supernatural forces in our universe.

No God. No right and wrong. No meaning.

Me and you?

Stardust bumping into stardust.

We're just a part of this great big universe that was here before us and will be here after us. You only live once, so live for yourself, find what makes you happy and don't let anyone stop you.

Let's grant it.

The Problem of Uniformity

Our evolution friends love to tell us that they hold to “science” as their ultimate standard. They even mock Christians, saying we have “blind faith” and despise being rational.

What’s interesting is…science itself RELIES on the universe being repeatable.

Since the universe is consistent, we can observe things in nature, and make a general statement about how that thing acts all the time.

If I drop a bowling ball and measure how fast it falls, and repeat it over and over again, I can confirm that gravity has a certain rate. That’s just good ole observable science.

You would think if science relies on this principle, we should have a really, really good reason to trust it, shouldn’t we?

Well…on the evolutionary view, there is no reason to trust that the universe is consistent. If everything is just matter in motion, there can be no transcendent order. There is nothing “above” matter on this worldview that would cause it to be consistent day in and day out.

There can be no consistent laws, because consistency involves design and meaning, and there is no design and meaning on the evolutionary worldview.

On the Christian worldview, God not only created the universe, but He also upholds it and manages it, every second of the day.

"While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease."Genesis 8:22

"And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together."Colossians 1:17

"He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power."Hebrews 1:3

I can trust that the future will be like the past because God has promised it will be. But if you’re an atheist who holds to evolution as our origin story, the question is…

Why do you?

Why would you expect gravity to stay the same? Why would you brush your teeth assuming your toothpaste will come out of the tube the same way every time?

Why, after burning your finger in a fire, would you avoid touching it again, assuming that fire is always hot?

In fact, if evolution were true, everything is possible. There are no bounds as to what could happen at any second of the day.

Most atheists who cling onto evolution point at Christians saying “You really believe a man rose from the dead? Donkey’s talking? Come on dude.”

Well…on the Christian worldview, God spoke the universe into existence from nothing…I think he can handle raising a few people from the dead?

The question I have for my atheist friends are…why do you have a problem with miracles?

Every second of the day is a miracle on the evolutionary worldview. Nothing to something, something to life, life to intelligence…the amount of miracles that have already occurred is astronomical

In fact, if you hold to the evolutionary view, why would you expect anything to be regular in the first place? You should look outside and say:

“well this is peculiar, where’s the disorder and chaos?”

The Problem of Mind

But that’s just the first stop on our tour of the evolutionary universe.

If everything is matter it motion, that also means that our "minds" are too. Your mind is reduced to your brain. Your brain is your mind.

Let's say I’m chatting with one of my evolutionist friends, and they say this to me:

"God doesn’t exist, we've gotten here from gradual evolution"

Well, on their own worldview, they wouldn't have a reason to believe that, because that statement is just their brain fizzing atheistic chemicals.

It's not an actual belief based on logic or rational thought, it’s just what their brain decided to spit out. It’s not their fault for saying those things, they couldn't help it.

As Dr Greg Bahnsen put it:

“...if atheism is true, there could be no reason to believe atheism is true...My brain just does what it does, and his brain just does what his does…”

So basically, if evolution happened, and we live in an atheistic universe, all logic, thought, rationality, meaning, and everything that you think and speak about…is reduced to brain fizz.

The Problem of Ethics

But we’re not done yet, because there is yet another problem that I think cuts deeper: Ethics

Ethics at its most basic level, is what we ought and ought not to do. I can murder 24 people, but should I? I can cheat on my spouse, but should I? These are ethical questions.

Here’s the problem…if we're all just stardust, then who cares about ethics?

Anyone can make an ethical claim like “Don’t do this” o…

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.repentlabs.com/subscribe

Many atheists claim that evolution is a proven scientific fact. If you disagree, they usually laugh, and go on to say things like:

“You’re one of those Bible thumpers aren’t you? You believe Noah and the arc too, right?”

But what if I told you that evolution was such a bad theory, that if an 8th grader presented it for his final project, he would get expelled from school for how irrational it was?

Well, that’s true, and I’m going to show you why in the next few posts. Today, we’re going to talk about how survival of the fittest is nothing more than a tautology.

Recent Posts from the Devolved Series

* The Religion of Evolution: Devolved Part 1

* Billions of Years Nonsense: Devolved Part 2

* The Big Bang Refutes Itself: Devolved Part 3

* Evolution Can’t Even Start: Devolved Part 4

* The Fossil Record Should Terrify You: Devolved Part 5

* Dinosaurs Less Than 10,000 Years Old: Devolved Part 6

* Sex for No Reason: Devolved Part 7

I make Repent Labs free for everyone so we can boldly defend Christ. To support my work, consider a paid subscription if you are in a position to. Either way, thanks for reading!

Natural Selection is Real

Before we get too critical of our evolutionist friends, I want to remind you that natural selection is 100% true.

“…Basically, natural selection is the principle that organisms that have traits well-suited to their environment tend to survive and reproduce in greater numbers than organisms with traits that are not well-suited to their environment. In extreme cases, the organisms that are less suited to their environment are driven to extinction.”

Here's a fake example, imagine 2 types of dogs. One has short hair, one has long hair.

These dogs live in a very cold environment, so naturally, the dog with the long hair genes survives longer, and the dog with short hair dies. The short hair dog has not left any children, since he died :(

The long-haired dog however left many children, since he did survive. This is a genetic process that God built into his creation, which is responsible for the vast amount of diversity we see.

But did you notice something in the example I gave?

Both dogs were Dogs.

They didn't transform into a new species of animal over thousands and millions of years. They immediately pass down genes to their dog children.

Natural Selection Stolen

Unfortunately, natural selection got kidnapped into the regime of gradual evolution. Using natural selection as a foundation, evolutionists claim that animals evolved based on their environment.

Giraffes started with short necks, but then one awesome giraffe had a 10-foot neck because "why not", and that giraffe ate more food and survived.

At the surface, this might actually make sense too, but the problem is, if the environment sucks, animals don't stick around for millions of years and change their bodies, they move.

Those short-necked giraffes would have just found shorter trees. This is not only more practical, it's actually within the mental capacity of the animal.

If giraffes can't even talk to me, why would I expect them to think "Gee wiz, I need to grow a longer neck" and then even crazier, actually grow longer necks on demand.

Useless Organs

Another thing we're told is that mutations (like long necks) "stick around" because they're advantageous for the animal.

But, the theory of evolution also tells us that it was a gradual process over a long period of time.

So...let's see how this works on the human heart. The human heart evolved over many years slowly and gradually...but the only reason the heart continued to evolve is because the earliest versions of it were still advantageous.

Question...what's the advantage of a 1/3rd developed heart? What would a non-functioning heart do for you? How about lungs? What was the use of the 1/10th developed lungs vs the 1/5th developed lungs?

This idea is ridiculous because all of the systems we observe in nature (including our own bodies) have very specific purposes.

They are designed to do certain things. Many of these systems would be useless if they didn't have every single component functioning all in one shot.

I highly recommend watching this amazing video about the 4D design of DNA. This is just one example of how impossible it would be to gradually develop a system as complex as this, via random mutation.

Survival of the Survivors

Another thing we're told about gradual evolution is what's called the survival of the fittest. Basically, the fittest versions of a biological form are going to survive.

Question; how do you test that hypothesis? Let's take an example by Dr. Greg Bahnsen.

Let's say we have 2 wolves, with a mutational difference. One has stronger hind quarters. You might think "that makes that wolf more fit for survival! It'll get fed more, and it'll have more offspring!"

It's also possible that the mutated hind quarters on this wolf put a strain on its heart, so overtime, that wolf dies early from a heart attack.

The reason is, biological systems work together, you can't just take one part in isolation. As mutations change certain systems, those changes can negatively affect other systems.

In order to test "survival of the fittest", you have to be able to identify which forms are the fittest first, and then predict that those fittest forms would survive, and wait to see what happens.

But how do you identify which forms are the fittest? Well…you wait and see which ones survive.

But why did it survive? Because it was the fittest. How do you know it's the fittest? Because it survived.

So...Darwin’s grand theory boils down to this;

The creatures that survive are the ones that will survive

Thanks Darwin 👀

The Real Issue

So, if Darwin’s theory is circular, why do people continue to push the theory of evolution as if it’s a proven scientific fact?

Because it's a path to escape the wrath of God.

If evolution is true, that means that there is no personal God behind the design of the universe. No personal God…no justice…no justice…

No judgement.

We have been serving the creature rather than the creator, and that's an easy God to deal with.

…because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator…

Romans 1:25

We’re Not Done

So evolutionists tell us that the most fit lifeforms survive, and that is how evolution gradually progresses. But as we’ve seen today, this entire theory is circular and untestable.

But that’s not the only problem with evolution. Next week, we’re going to talk about how evolutionists turn “nature” into God.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.repentlabs.com/subscribe

Many atheists claim that evolution is a proven scientific fact. If you disagree, they usually laugh, and go on to say things like:

“You’re one of those Bible thumpers aren’t you? You believe Noah and the arc too, right?”

But what if I told you that evolution was such a bad theory, that if an 8th grader presented it for his final project, he would get expelled from school for how irrational it was?

Well, that’s true, and I’m going to show you why in the next few posts. Today, we’re going to talk about how sex organs refute the idea of gradual evolution.

Recent Posts from the Devolved Series

* The Religion of Evolution: Devolved Part 1

* Billions of Years Nonsense: Devolved Part 2

* The Big Bang Refutes Itself: Devolved Part 3

* Evolution Can’t Even Start: Devolved Part 4

* The Fossil Record Should Terrify You: Devolved Part 5

* Dinosaurs Less Than 10,000 Years Old: Devolved Part 6

I make Repent Labs free for everyone so we can boldly defend Christ. To support my work, consider a paid subscription if you are in a position to. Either way, thanks for reading!

Bacteria Are Better

On the theory of evolution, we’re told that lifeforms that are more adept to their environment survive, and those that are not as adept, die out.

That means evolution is preferable to lifeforms who multiply the most. The more kids you have, the more likely you’ll last and survive in the environment you’re in.

Well if that’s true, then why did lifeforms evolve beyond the bacterial stage? You see, bacteria multiply very quickly, through division. Elementary school children get bacteria to grow in their classroom, it’s not hard.

And yet…there’s all of these animals we see that have very complicated ways of having children. They need to have sex in order to have babies.

What’s the problem? Intercourse complicates having children. Instead of having thousands or millions of children like bacteria can, animals that require sex are now reduced down to a handful of kids. Why was that advantageous?

The reality is, on evolution’s own terms, if lifeforms evolved into complex life solely on the basis for survival, evolution wouldn’t have happened. We would have just stayed bacteria forever.

Useless Sex

But let’s be generous, we don’t want to be too harsh here. Let’s just say that, for some reason, mutations started to happen and bacteria lifeforms began to evolve.

And then let’s go further and say, somewhere along the line, they began to evolve with genatalia (sex organs).

Question; what is the advantage of having sex organs that don’t function?

Remember, these organs evolved gradually over time (otherwise, it’s just a creation account). For example, that means at one point, a male bacteria had partially created male genatalia, without anyway to use it to reproduce.

Why? Why would bacteria keep on with this partially created male genatalia if it served no purpose.

Until the whole sex system is in place and a male and female come together successfully…there’s no use for sex organs.

Male & Female Madness

But let’s keep going for a minute. Let’s say, for some reason, bacteria evolved with non-functioning versions of male and female genatalia.

How long is a female human woman fertile for? Well usually around 40 years right?

Let’s be generous and just say 100 years. We have 100 years for a woman to be able to get pregnant.

Evolutionists want us to believe that in this narrow window of 100 years, a male AND a female had functioning genatalia, simultaneously, knew what to do with that genatalia, had intercourse, and successfully reproduced from it?

And after that random miracle of mutation, they decided, for no other reason, to keep doing it? Do you know what we call ideas like these?

Asinineextremely or utterly foolish or silly

We’re Not Done

So evolutionists tell us that lifeforms that reproduce the most are the ones most adept to survive. But as we’ve seen today, if this was true, we should never have evolved in the fist place.

But that’s not the only problem with evolution. Next week, we’re going to talk about survival of the fittest.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.repentlabs.com/subscribe

Many atheists claim that evolution is a proven scientific fact. If you disagree, they usually laugh, and go on to say things like:

“You’re one of those Bible thumpers aren’t you? You believe Noah and the arc too, right?”

But what if I told you that evolution was such a bad theory, that if an 8th grader presented it for his final project, he would get expelled from school for how irrational it was?

Well, that’s true, and I’m going to show you why in the next few posts. Today, we’re going to talk about how dinosaurs have been kidnapped and used to brainwash the masses that the evolutionary timeline is true.

Recent Posts from the Devolved Series

* The Religion of Evolution: Devolved Part 1

* Billions of Years Nonsense: Devolved Part 2

* The Big Bang Refutes Itself: Devolved Part 3

* Evolution Can’t Even Start: Devolved Part 4

* The Fossil Record Should Terrify You: Devolved Part 5

I make Repent Labs free for everyone so we can boldly defend Christ. To support my work, consider a paid subscription if you are in a position to. Either way, thanks for reading.

They Start ‘em Early

It would be weird if you hadn’t already heard the “150 million years ago dinosaurs walked the planet” spiel by now. Most of us get this imported in our brain at an early age when we’re buying our first dino toys.

These are big numbers…100’s of millions of years. Are dinosaurs really that old? Certainly if they were, that would support the evolutionary theory.

Well I’m here to tell you that, no, they’re not. Dinosaurs have been kidnapped by the evolutionists to push their unsupported, pagan philosophy. Today we’re going to see that dinosaurs are quite young.

How Old are Dinosaurs?

How old are dinosaurs? Surprisingly enough, there is no label on fossils when we find them. Scientists can’t just run an experiment and then “Eureka! Its 70 million years old!”

The age of dinosaurs is a historical science question. The problem is, evolutionists just assume the age of fossils by comparing the depth the bones were found with their assumptions about how old those rock layers are.

To prove to you that these assumptions are incorrect, we’re going to take Mount St. Helens as an example.

Mount St. Helens

In 1980, Mount St. Helens erupted. Here’s a quick description of what it was like:

As the land slid away, molten rock at temperatures reaching 1700° F (925° C) exploded water into steam and blasted out over the northern landscape. Within seconds, this blast cloud destroyed 200 square miles (515 km2) of forests—ripping up some areas and tossing the trees about in the sediment, blowing over other trees and stripping the leaves and limbs off those furthest away from the blast. The blast cloud spread out over the land at speeds over 650 mph (1,040 km/h).

In 1992, just over 10 years after it’s eruption, a sample was taken on a lava dome at Mount St Helens.

The dating method the researchers used was the potassium-argon method (widely used in geological circles). The laboratory was not told that the specimen was only 10 years old.

You would think the results should at least come back as a very young age. Right?

Well, they didn’t. The projected age using this method, of this 10 year old sample, ranged from 340,000 to 2.8 million years.

If we can’t trust this method to date rocks of known age, why would we trust it with rocks of unknown age?

DNA Decay

Moving further, A study was done to determine how quickly DNA will decay in bone. They found that, even under the best possible conditions, DNA will only last at max about 10,000 years.

Well…researchers found DNA in a dinosaur skull. The “supposed” age of the dinosaur by secular standards was 75,000,000 years old. If DNA can only last at max, 10,000 years…but the “age” of the dinosaur is 75,000,000, how is that possible?

It’s possible because this dinosaur isn’t 75M years old. That number is a guess based off of evolutionist assumptions. The dinosaur was likely buried from the global flood a little over 4,000 years ago, which makes sense of the DNA found.

Evan Saitta with the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago had this to say

These organic materials... are understood to be among the least stable biomolecules over long periods of time and under the heat of deep burial during fossilization. However, it is the extreme age of the samples that is striking. This 75-million-year-old fossil is, at least, one or two orders of magnitude older than the expected preservation limits of DNA and proteins.

Soft Tissue in a T-Rex

Moving further, a researcher found red blood cells and soft tissue from a T-Rex femur. It’s literally still elastic. Could these last millions of years in these conditions? Of course not.

Non-Existent Fossil Evidence

We’re also told about the Dinosaur family tree like the one shown below. This is what the evolutionary storyline tries to portray. The White filling is where there is actual fossil evidence, the grey area is where there are evolutionist assumptions.

What do you notice? There’s no evidence in the transitioning sections. If you remove all the grey, you simply get evidence for the creation account in genesis.

The Real Issue

With the presence of DNA in fossils, the fossil record itself, and the unreliable dating methods that evolutionists use, all the data confirms the biblical timeline, not the millions of years we are spoon fed from childhood.

So why do evolutionists continue to push the Dinosaur story of millions of years? Because boy that would be convenient, wouldn’t it? Imagine if evolution were true and you and I could just do what we wanted?

The reality is, God made dinosaurs at the same time he made all of the other land animals. And as we learned last week, God also judged the world with water just over 4,000 years ago.

This judgement was an image of the judgement to come, where all men will reap what they have sown.

We’re Not Done

So dinosaurs are touted as some of the foundational evidence of gradual evolution. But as we’ve seen today, dinosaurs aren’t really that old at all, they’re quite young.

But the question is, if dinosaurs aren’t millions of years old…what exactly happened to them? That’s what we’ll cover next week.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.repentlabs.com/subscribe

Many atheists claim that evolution is a proven scientific fact. If you disagree, they usually laugh, and go on to say things like:

“You’re one of those Bible thumpers aren’t you? You believe Noah and the arc too, right?”

But what if I told you that evolution was such a bad theory, that if an 8th grader presented it for his final project, he would get expelled from school for how irrational it was?

Well, that’s true, and I’m going to show you why in the next few posts. Today, we’re going to talk about how the fossil record doesn’t confirm evolution, it confirms something much scarier.

Recent Posts from the Devolved Series

* The Religion of Evolution: Devolved Part 1

* Billions of Years Nonsense: Devolved Part 2

* The Big Bang Refutes Itself: Devolved Part 3

* Evolution Can’t Even Start: Devolved Part 4

I make Repent Labs free for everyone so we can boldly defend Christ. To support my work, consider a paid subscription if you are in a position to. Either way, thanks for reading.

Evolution in the Fossils?

As we’ve seen from the previous posts in this series, evolution can’t even start. Cosmologists and Chemists certainly can’t help the evolutionists here.

But what about the fossil record? If the theory of evolution were true and there was a gradual change in lifeforms, the fossil record should show any number of connecting links between lifeforms.

Well, does it?

Nothing :/

Unfortunately for the evolutionist, the fossil record shows life happening abruptly and in complex forms. There’s also gaps between different types of lifeforms.

There is also no fossil trace of an ape-like creature turning into a man. There have been many claimed missing links, but upon further observation, they are either man-made hoaxes, or misinterpreted chimp fossils.

Well then, paleontologists would be the first people to give up the theory of evolution, right? If they know the fossil record, they couldn't possibly continue holding to evolution…right?

Well a very prominent academic in evolution, Stephen Jay Gould, knew the fossil record very well. He knows it doesn't support Darwin’s theory.

So in 1977, as a leading advocate of evolution, he wrote an article entitled Punctuated Equilibrium in the journal Paleobiology, volume 3, page 145.

According to Gould, the fossil record doesn’t support evolution as interpreted in a gradualistic sense. But, since we just know evolution is true (👀), the fossil record must prove to us that evolution took place.

According to Gould, when evolutionary change happens, it doesn’t happen gradually at all. It happens very fast, and then you have long periods of equilibrium (things staying the same).

So we just so happened to only have hundreds of millions of fossils that were laid down during one of those nice equilibrium periods, and not one of those pesky punctuated evolutionary periods.

Dr. Greg Bahnsen had this to say about Gould’s view:

“That amounts to saying; The proof of my theory in the fossil record is that there would be no proof in the fossil record.”

So…the Creation Account?

The main problem with this view is that it turns into a creation account by natural means. Remember, if we assume this punctuated equilibrium is true, that means that:

* There were different “periods” of evolution

* These periods were all “very short”

* These periods were powered by “creative energy and change”

* There are ‘gaps’ in between these periods

Well, the Genesis account already documents periods of creative bursts, separated by a gap of a day.

The difference with this theory is that, instead of God’s infinite mind powering the creation, its just a random force. This is absurd because, we have to ask…what generic natural force is powering these random ‘bursts’ of evolutionary change?

If the changes in evolution were random, we would expect that change to happen constantly over time, not in short bursts.

To continue, Stephen Jay Gould explains why gradualistic evolution has been preferred:

“The general preference that so many of us hold for gradualism is a metaphysical stance embedded in the history of western cultures. It is not a high-order empirical observation induced from the objective study of nature.”

And moving further on page 147:

"At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the 'official' position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record..."

As stated previously, gradual evolution is a philosophy, not a strict scientific theory. The fossil record simply confirms this.

So if the fossil record doesn’t support gradual evolution, what does it confirm? What can we conclude based on the evidence?

What is a Fossil?

Well, what is a fossil?

fossil

the remains or impression of a prehistoric organism preserved in petrified form or as a mold or cast in rock.

Basically, fossils are the remains of a once living creature found in rocks.

When you see a dead deer on the side of the road, what will happen in the coming days and weeks? Will it fossilize?

Well no, it’ll be eaten quickly by scavengers and bacteria. Nature will take its course.

So why do we see billions of fossils all over the world, with many of them being well preserved? What could explain this?

Rapid burial. If these animals were buried rapidly, their bodies would be preserved, out of reach from oxygen and burrowing animals. Fossilizing can happen very quickly, in fact, you can literally make a fossil at home, today.

Even evolutionists agree that the fossil record is mostly a history of catastrophe, not gradual development.

However, as Rampino notes, geological history is now commonly understood to be marked by long periods of stability punctuated by major ecological changes that occur both episodically and rapidly, casting doubt on Darwin's theory that "most evolutionary change was accomplished very gradually by competition between organisms and by becoming better adapted to a relatively stable environment."

1. Marine Life

So, what kind of fossils do we find in the fossil record? For one, we find marine fossils (sea creatures) in rock layers way above sea level all over the world.

If these rock layers were created over thousands or millions of years, we wouldn’t expect to see sea creatures at this elevation.

Something carried these marine creatures to this height, something that we certainly don’t see today.

Dr. Andrew A. Snelling said this about the marine fossils

These marine fossils are found haphazardly preserved in this limestone bed. The crinoids, for example, are found with their columnals (disks) totally separated from one another, while in life they are stacked on top of one another to make up their “stems.” Thus, these marine creatures were catastrophically destroyed and buried in this lime sediment.

2. Fossils in Action

We also find fossils of animals who are in the middle of a very temporary state. Take for example the picture above. This is a documented fossil of a fish in the middle of eating another fish.

If this fossil was laid down over a long period of time, it wouldn’t be found in this position. It would have already eaten the other fish by now.

Something happened to this fish that was so quick & abrupt, there was no time for it to even finish its dinner.

So What Happened?

To recap, we know that fossils are evidence of a rapid burial. We find billions of fossils all over the globe, which points to a global event.

We find marine fossils in elevations way above sea level, which means this global event carried them up there. And we even find fossils of animals in the middle of a very temporary state.

The question is…what kind of global, cataclysmic event could have possibly buried this many ani…

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.repentlabs.com/subscribe

Many atheists claim that evolution is a proven scientific fact. If you disagree, they usually laugh, and go on to say things like:

“You’re one of those Bible thumpers aren’t you? You believe Noah and the arc too, right?”

But what if I told you that evolution was such a bad theory, that if an 8th grader presented it for his final project, he would get expelled from school for how irrational it was?

Well, that’s true, and I’m going to show you why in the next few posts. Today, we’re going to talk about how we can’t even get evolution to start if we wanted to.

Recent Posts from the Devolved Series

* The Religion of Evolution: Devolved Part 1

* Billions of Years Nonsense: Devolved Part 2

* The Big Bang Refutes Itself: Devolved Part 3

I make Repent Labs free for everyone so we can boldly defend Christ. To support my work, consider a paid subscription if you are in a position to. Either way, thanks for reading.

What We’ll Cover

* The Math Problem

* The Problem of Chirality

* The Real Issue

Life from Non-Life

Assuming that the Big Bang happened (which we know from this post and this post that it didn’t), the first step on our evolutionary journey is what’s called abiogenesis.

“the original evolution of life of living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances”

Basically, how did life generate from non-life?

How did life appear randomly from no life at all? That’s a massive jump, especially in the chance universe that our secular friends live in.

Well, Christians don’t have to lift a finger to refute this. Evolutionists' own colleagues don’t even buy it.

The Math Problem

We’re not just talking about Christians beating evolutionists over the head with their Bibles, but secular mathematicians who have serious issues with the theory of evolution.

A number of Mathematicians in 1967 published their academic papers under the title Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution.

These mathematicians are applying probability to the theory of evolution. Given a true random force (God is not behind it), there isn’t nearly enough time, even billions of years, for this to have happened.

Here’s a quote from Eden Murray from one of the published books:

“It is our contention, that if the word “random” is given a serious and crucial interpretation, from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible, and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws...”

That’s devastating. Eden is saying, if we’re truly going to say that evolution came from random chance, we need to wait for new natural laws.

How Many Zeros?

Going further, here is what Michael Denton points out in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis

To get one cell by chance would require at least 100 functional proteins to appear simultaneously in one place.

The independent probability of any particular protein appearing is going to be hardly more than 10^-20.

So…it’s a 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance that one protein appears out of nowhere. But to get one cell, we need 100 of those proteins to appear, simultaneously, all in the same place.

If you gamble at Las Vegas and somebody offers you a probability of 1 in 10, those are bad odds. What about 1 in a 100? Well those are exceptionally bad odds.

Let’s go even deeper, what about 1 in a 1,000? Surely you’d be mad to even touch that game.

Denton pointed out that the maximum combined probability would be 1-in-10^2,000. 2,000 zeros.

To show you how bad that is, I wrote it out below

1 in 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 chance

And what would that achieve? One cell.

“But Joe, if we DO get 1 cell, then evolution is complete right?

Not at all, this is just for evolution to start.

The Problem of Chirality

Aside from our mathematician friends, there are many origin of life studies that aim to show life could have formed by itself, and without a creator.

To do that, you need proteins, and to make proteins you need amino acids. The problem is, when you make amino acids in a laboratory, you run into the issue of chirality.

Basically, amino acids can appear in left-handed, and right-handed forms. These are named based on the shape they make.

The problem?

If life spontaneously generated from a warm pond somewhere, it would be made from the amino acids in a non-living environment.

But for life to form, amino acids are exclusively left-handed form. Yet, in a laboratory setting, making amino acids generates a mixture of left & right-handed forms. This does not support life.

Now some researchers try to construct a “filtering” system that separates the left from the right-handed amino acids. That way, they can have an exclusive collection of left-handed amino acids to create life from.

Well, when these filtering systems separate the amino acids, some of the left-handed amino acids will spontaneously change into the right-handed form.

“In other words? You cannot generate life from non-life.”

-The evidence

An Obsolete View

So, life coming from non-life isn’t looking too good. But this isn’t a new problem. In fact, abiogenesis is so unsupported, it’s classified as an obsolete view in many technical journals today.

From The McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms

“the obsolete concept that plant and animal life arise from nonliving organic matter,”

From the Oxford Dictionary of Science

“The development of living organisms from non-living matter, as in the supposed origin of life on Earth, or in the concept of spontaneous generation which was once held to account for the origin of life but which modern understanding of evolutionary processes has rendered outdated”

The Real Issue

So if abiogenesis is mathematically improbable, has no observable evidence of happening in nature, and isn’t even considered a credible theory among evolutionists’ own colleagues…

Then why is the theory of evolution still kicking around? If we can’…

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.repentlabs.com/subscribe