Unshakeable Trailer




Unshakeable Trailer

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

A Not-So-Ancient Jawbone

Recently, a fellow young earth creationist brought to my attention a recent news report that supposedly proves the earth is old. The find is an “ancient” jawbone of a person. Here’s one article reporting this find (I will reference this article below): Jaw bone discovered in Ethiopia is oldest known human lineage remains

First, let’s get our facts straight. I learned something a few months ago from Eric Hovind and the team at Creation Today - checking for “fuzzy words”. Fuzzy words are words in sentences that expresses uncertainty about a certain claim. “Perhaps”, “possibly”, “maybe”, “could have”, “is theorized”, are all examples of fuzzy words. So let’s now look at this news report to remove the fuzzy parts and only leave the real facts:

“A lower jaw bone and five teeth discovered on a hillside in Ethiopia are the oldest remains ever found that belong to the genus Homo, the lineage that ultimately led to modern humans.”

Okay, so far so good - no fuzzy words. But this claim by itself doesn’t prove anything. In reality, this sentence is only referring to the next sentences to back it up, so let’s look there:

“Fossil hunters spotted the jaw poking out of a rocky slope in the dry and dusty Afar region of the country about 250 miles from Addis Ababa.”

That’s true, but that still doesn’t show why this is supposedly ancient. It only shows where it was found. Moving on:

“The US-led research team believes the individual lived about 2.8m years ago, when the now parched landscape was open grassland and shrubs nourished by tree-lined rivers and wetlands.”

Here we have our first fuzzy claim - that this jawbone is 2.8 million years old. This conclusion by the research team are uncertain as to the true age of this fossil. So let’s remove that sentence from the picture to only keep the facts. The report continues:

“The remains are about 400,000 years older than fossils which had previously held the record as the earliest known specimens on the Homo lineage.”

Okay, no fuzzy words here, but again, how do they know this? They certainly haven’t given any evidence so far. Let’s continue:

“The discovery sheds light on a profoundly important but poorly understood period in human evolution that played out between two and three million years ago, when humans began the crucial transformation from ape-like animals into forms that used tools and eventually began to resemble modern humans.”

Here’s another fuzzy claim - human evolution happened about 2-3 million years ago. But according to their own statements, it is poorly understood. So they really aren’t certain that human evolution even happened 2-3 million years ago. Moving on:

““This is the the first inkling we have of that transition to modern behaviour. We were no longer solving problems with our bodies but with our brains,” said Brian Villmoare at the University of Nevada in Las Vegas.”

Here’s another fuzzy claim - humans were solving problems with their brains at the supposed (and uncertain) time of this jawbone. An inkling is another way of saying a hint or a clue. In other words, the research team is unsure about what was happening at the supposed time of this jawbone. Let’s continue:

“The new fossil, found at a site called Ledi-Geraru, has a handful of primitive features in common with an ancient forerunner of modern humans called Australopithecus afarensis. The most well-known specimen, the 3m-year-old Lucy, was unearthed in 1974 in Hadar, only 40 miles from the Ledi-Geraru site. But the latest fossil has more modern traits too. Some are seen only on the Homo lineage, such as a shallower chin bone.”

Okay, no fuzzy words here. We’ll get back to this claim in just a moment. Let’s continue:

“The picture that emerges from the fossil record is that 3m years ago, the ape-like Australopithecus afarensis died out and was superseded by two very different human forms. One, called Paranthropus, had a small brain, large teeth and strong jaw muscles for chewing its food. The other was the Homo lineage, which found itself with much larger brains, a solution that turned out to be more successful.”

Another fuzzy claim. By them saying that they have this information from a “picture that emerges” (e.g. a hint, a clue, just pieces of the puzzle), they are admitting their uncertainty of this claim. Moving on:

““By finding this jaw bone we’ve figured out where that trajectory started,” said Villamoare. “This is the first Homo. It marks in all likelihood a major adaptive transition.””

Yet ANOTHER fuzzy claim. They don’t know for sure that this jawbone they found was the first human being that evolved from an ape. They think it is, but that doesn’t make it so! Moving on:

“What drove Australopithethus to extinction and led to the rise of Homo is a mystery, but researchers suspect a dramatic change in the environment transformed the landscape of eastern Africa. “It could be that there was some sort of ecological shift and humans had to evolve or go extinct,” said Villmoare.”

These are even more indicators for this paragraph that this claim is indeed a fuzzy claim. They don’t know what supposedly made man evolve from ape - they’re just speculating! Moving on:

“Other fossils recovered nearby the new human remains suggest that the region was much wetter than Hadar where Lucy was found. Remnants of antelopes, prehistoric elephants, primitive hippos, crocodiles and fish were all recovered from the Ledi-Geraru site, researchers said. Details of the discoveries are reported in two papers published in Science.”

Again, this is another fuzzy claim. These researchers can’t tell you what climate these animals lived in by simply their bones. That’s insane! Moving on:

“The human jaw was discovered in January 2013 by Chalachew Seyoum, an Ethiopian national on the team, and a student at Arizona State University. He was part of a group that had set off from camp that morning to look for fossils on a hill that was later found to be brimming with ancient bones.”

Finally! A claim that isn’t fuzzy! But they never give the reason why that hill was full of “ancient bones.” Oh well. Moving on:

“Villamoare, who was on the expedition, recalled the moment of discovery. “I heard people yelling Brian! Brian! And I went round the corner and there was Chalachew. He recognised it, and said: ‘We’ve got a human.’ It had eroded out of the stratigraphy. It was in two pieces and was missing some of the teeth, but it was clearly of the genus Homo.””

Okay, no fuzzy claims here. I’m sure it was the jawbone of a human being - I have no doubt about that. Let’s continue:

“The fossil bones are too fragmentary to give them a human species name. The jawbone could belong to Homo habilis, known as “handy man”, the earliest known species on the Homo lineage. But Villamoare is not convinced. It could be a new species that lived before Homo habilis.”

Here we go again! This is just another fuzzy claim that this fossil was a missing link to humans (Homo Sapiens). They have no reason to believe this jawbone belonged to anything other than a human. Moving on:

“Other researchers agree. In a separate paper published in Nature, Fred Spoor at University College, London, reports a virtual reconstruction of a Homo habilis skull. “By digitally exploring what Homo habilis really looked like, we could infer the nature of its ancestor, but no such fossils were known,” said Spoor. “Now the Ledi-Geraru jaw has turned up as if on request, suggesting a plausible evolutionary link between Australopithecus afarensis and Homo habilis.””

More fuzzy claims. They don’t know what Homo habilis (the previously mentioned so-called missing link “handy man”) actually looked like! They only could explore the clues of what he looked like. But they can’t just find out things like facial structure of non-bone facial features like ears, the nose, lips, etc. They can’t even find out the skin color, the eye color, or the hair color - or even that he had hair! That’s why they are “exploring”, because they don’t know, and they can’t know. Plus, they don’t even know if this jawbone they found is the missing link between Australopithecus (the famous “Lucy”) and Homo habilis (“handy man”). This is all mere speculation from a bunch of researchers who have way too much time on their hands for imagination. Moving on:

“But until more remains are found, the mystery will remain. The US-led team has been back to the site this January to look for more fossils, but Villamoare said he cannot yet talk about what they did or did not find.”

In other words, this report is admitting that this entire story they have presented us based on their interpretation of the fossils is a big fuzzy story. Since this article is over, let’s reconstruct this article with only the claims that appear to be factual:

“A lower jaw bone and five teeth discovered on a hillside in Ethiopia are the oldest remains ever found that belong to the genus Homo, the lineage that ultimately led to modern humans.

Fossil hunters spotted the jaw poking out of a rocky slope in the dry and dusty Afar region of the country about 250 miles from Addis Ababa.

The remains are about 400,000 years older than fossils which had previously held the record as the earliest known specimens on the Homo lineage.

The new fossil, found at a site called Ledi-Geraru, has a handful of primitive features in common with an ancient forerunner of modern humans called Australopithecus afarensis. The most well-known specimen, the 3m-year-old Lucy, was unearthed in 1974 in Hadar, only 40 miles from the Ledi-Geraru site. But the latest fossil has more modern traits too. Some are seen only on the Homo lineage, such as a shallower chin bone.

The human jaw was discovered in January 2013 by Chalachew Seyoum, an Ethiopian national on the team, and a student at Arizona State University. He was part of a group that had set off from camp that morning to look for fossils on a hill that was later found to be brimming with ancient bones.

Villamoare, who was on the expedition, recalled the moment of discovery. “I heard people yelling Brian! Brian! And I went round the corner and there was Chalachew. He recognised it, and said: ‘We’ve got a human.’ It had eroded out of the stratigraphy. It was in two pieces and was missing some of the teeth, but it was clearly of the genus Homo.””

Alright, now that we see this more factual version of what was discovered, we find that these claims of great age upon this jawbone is a bunch of hot air. There is no sure evidence provided that these bones are really that old. Plus, the last statement from the real article says that their entire story of the age of this jawbone and it’s supposedly evolutionary history is a fuzzy story. So, let’s further remove those indirectly admitted fuzzy claims and their evolutionary bias (for which they provide no evidence):

“A lower jaw bone and five teeth discovered on a hillside in Ethiopia belong to the genus Homo.

Fossil hunters spotted the jaw poking out of a rocky slope in the dry and dusty Afar region of the country about 250 miles from Addis Ababa.

The new fossil, found at a site called Ledi-Geraru, has a handful of features in common with Australopithecus afarensis. The most well-known specimen, Lucy, was unearthed in 1974 in Hadar, only 40 miles from the Ledi-Geraru site. But the latest fossil has more human traits such as a shallower chin bone.

The human jaw was discovered in January 2013 by Chalachew Seyoum, an Ethiopian national on the team, and a student at Arizona State University. He was part of a group that had set off from camp that morning to look for fossils on a hill that was later found to be brimming with bones.

Villamoare, who was on the expedition, recalled the moment of discovery. “I heard people yelling Brian! Brian! And I went round the corner and there was Chalachew. He recognised it, and said: ‘We’ve got a human.’ It had eroded out of the stratigraphy. It was in two pieces and was missing some of the teeth, but it was clearly of the genus Homo.””

Now that we’ve finally got ourselves a factual article, there is every indication from the facts that all the scientists found was a human jawbone. That certainly is no threat to the Biblical teaching of a young earth, nor an evidence for evolution. What seemed at first to be like solid evidence for an old earth and evolution is just a bunch of hot air and bias.

Help Free Kent Hovind Today! #FreeKent

Dr. Kent Hovind is currently facing several charges of "mail fraud" which would place him in jail for the rest of his life. But all Dr. Hovind did was mail a legal document from the jail he's at. He isn't guilty of mail fraud! But all the odds are against him right now (e.g. public defender, anti-Christian judge, biased jury, etc.) If you want more info on this case, please visit www.FreeKentHovind.com.

If you want to know how you can help free Dr. Kent Hovind, please click on the following links to call Florida Representatives and know exactly what to tell them.

Senator Bill Nelson: http://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B-c4G-fIAxuJRXE5WFlpcEc1NkU
Congressman Jeff Miller: http://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B-c4G-fIAxuJZVFBM3Y5ZU5hS00
Senator Marco Rubio: http://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B-c4G-fIAxuJWjdGWjBvakR5dTA

#FreeKent

Sunday, February 15, 2015

Beware of this KJB Geocentrist Facebook Group

I used to be a member of a Facebook Group called, “A Case For Geocentricity”. The pages goal was to initiate discussion and debate about geocentrism (the belief that everything goes around the earth as opposed to everything going around the sun).


As you can see, I’m no longer part of their group. Why is this? Because I confronted several of the members exposing to them how inconsistent they were in claiming to be King James Bible Believers when they weren’t.

It started when I posted my reasons for believing an alternate model of the universe that wasn’t geocentric nor heliocentric.


I won’t go into my model since this isn’t the point of this article. Regardless, it was critical in some way of geocentrism. This facebook group is KJV-Only (as well as I).



Part of my post showed the inconsistent interpretation of Isaiah 40:22 as referring to a globe, “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:” (KJV). I pointed out that the word “circle” means a flat circular disc. I also explained why the 1828 Noah Webster Dictionary definition of “circle” as “orb” did not hold true at the time of the publication of the KJB - 1611. I gave evidence from the Oxford English Dictionary, which reports in page 422 of the second volume that this definition of “circle” as “orb” originated in 1667 - 56 years after the publication of the KJB. There is no possible way that the translators of the KJB could have intended to translate the Hebrew with the meaning of “globe”. Regardless of what that proves, someone tried to defend their interpretation of Isaiah 40:22 as referring to a globe by going to the “original Hebrew”.


As you can see, Coby Lantz is correcting the English KJB with the Hebrew. This came as a shock to me because this page was supposed to be KJV-Only! And that one “like” that comment received came from Steve Moore, another professing King James Bible Believer. I then tagged the administrators to report this anti-KJV attitude to them.


Then, Coby deleted his comments, leaving no evidence (but my screenshots) to the administrators. I then uploaded the screenshots for the admins to see.



Then, someone else came in (not the admins) and basically told me I was going to hell for not believing in geocentrism, not using the so-called, “built-in KJB dictionary” that Gail Riplinger invented, and for not being a disciple of Peter Ruckman.


Yup, that surely is a Christian loving his brother in Christ! Anyways, then one of the men criticizing the KJB (Steve Moore) attacked me personally and recommended Matt’s above post as true.


Notice that he denies that he promoted the use of the Hebrew to correct the KJB, and that he claims that’s what I did. I did not, and if I did, then could you please show us, Steve? Anyways, one of the administrators showed up.


I wasn’t being stubborn of hypocritical, I was merely exposing how Coby and Steve were acting hypocritically to the KJB. And Coby wasn’t just referring to the Hebrew, he tried to use it to make a point he couldn’t from the KJB. To true King James Bible Believers, the KJB is sufficient in all doctrine - there’s no need for the Hebrew or Greek. Of course, Teno saw my comments and complaints and evidence that there were anti-KJV people in that group. It seems as if Teno Groppi also shares this anti-KJV attitude. After that, I decided to leave the group because of the hypocrisy of people (and one of the admins) calling themselves King James Bible Believers when they corrected it whenever it didn’t agree with them. Unfortunately, these same people who are not King James Bible Believers are in several KJV-Only groups online.

If you happen to find out they’re in your group, please ask them this one question, “If you’re a King James Bible Believer, then why did you correct the KJB with the Hebrew?” I am warning all geocentrists who want to join a KJB Believing group to discuss geocentrism, please avoid this page - they are not King James Bible Believers and will correct the KJB when necessary to make their point.

Update 1

After I published this article and shared it in KJV-Only forums on Facebook, Teno and Steve have given their “response” to it. First, Steve Moore has basically called me an apostate liar who’s going to hell.




Apparently, he’s happy that I’m supposedly going to hell. That sure displays Christian love, doesn’t it? Anyways, Teno Groppi then responded with more evidence that he is indeed relying on the Hebrew to supersede the English words of the KJB.

Teno’s trying to say that we can go to the Hebrew and Greek to help the interpretations we want to see work, but relying only on the KJB is insufficient. And yet he claims the KJB is the perfect words of God and a perfect translation. Why go back and retranslate the text when it’s already been done perfectly? This is what happens when you only believe the Bible when it agrees with you. Anything too “ridiculous” must be retranslated. That’s not KJV-Onlyism.

Friday, January 16, 2015

Come see me speak on the age of the earth!

Last month, someone named Charlene emailed me an invitation to speak at the creation group she is the program chairman of. She asked me because another creation speaker who was requested can’t make it, and because she had heard a recommendation by Bill Morgan, the creation speaker who first invited me to speak at his group.

On January 27 from 7:00 PM to 8:00 PM, I will be speaking at Riverside Seventh Day Baptist (not Adventist) Church at 5901 Chicago Ave. Riverside, CA 92506. The topic will be, “The Age of The Earth”. Please consider coming to this event and learning more about the Biblical and scientific evidence for a young earth. Thanks be to God.


Monday, December 1, 2014

NEW UPDATED Video on Distant Starlight

On November 1, 2014, I did a presentation about distant starlight, and how it doesn’t refute the Bible’s message of the age of the earth. Later, I uploaded a copy of the video to YouTube, which had less visual quality at 360p. But just today, I uploaded the original video to YouTube, which now has 480p quality. PLUS, it includes an extra 20 minutes of the Q&A session that wasn’t in my first video. So, here is the new video:

Thursday, November 27, 2014

See me speak on the infallibility of the Bible!



On November 1, I gave a presentation at a church about distant starlight and how it isn’t a problem for creation (see that presentation here: http://youtu.be/Hc0YlcrJzik). That same day, David Soto, a pastor from another church, approached me and asked if I would consider coming to speak at his church. I answered “yes”.

On November 30, I will deliver a presentation titled, “We Can Trust The Bible”. Pastor David will be preaching before me during the church service. The service begins at 9:30 AM and ends at 11:00 AM. Please consider coming to this church this Sunday for the service.
Thanks alone to God for giving me this incredible opportunity to teach the truth and proclaim the gospel!

Sunday, November 23, 2014

My Starlight Presentation is now available!

On November 1, 2014, I did a presentation about distant starlight, and how it doesn’t refute the Bible’s message of the age of the earth. Here is the video recording of it:

Wednesday, November 12, 2014

SPACE.com's Evolution-Biased Comet Quiz

With the recent landing of a probe on a comet, SPACE.com released this article, and an interactive quiz at the bottom of the page. The quiz is titled, “Comet Quiz: Test Your Cosmic Knowledge”. The description of the quiz says, “Comets are debris left over after the solar system formed 4.6 billion years ago. Let’s see what you know about these ancient and elusive celestial wanderers.” That’s an obvious promotion of Stellar and Planetary Evolution with no evidence to back it up. So, I took the quiz.

The first eight questions and answers were based on scientifically demonstrated facts. But the last two questions are extremely biased towards their religion of Evolution. Question 9 reads, “True or False: Some scientists think that water and organic material carried by comets may have seeded life on Earth.” The answer to this predetermined quiz is “yes” of course. But the evolutionists don’t have any evidence that organic material can originate from the vacuum of space, survive a very long trip in outer space, and then evolve into every life form on earth. Plus, it doesn’t solve the problem of where that life came from.

Question 10 reads, “Where do many comets come from?” The preset answer is, “The Oort Cloud”. Yet the Oort Cloud has never been seen or shown to exist! This cloud of comets is supposed to be 50,000 Astronomical Units (AU) away. Pluto, by comparison, is 39 AU away, and can’t be seen with a powerful telescope. You certainly aren’t going to see an object 50,000 AU away! They have absolutely no evidence for their imaginary Oort Cloud, so they shouldn’t say that most comets come from it!

In fact, there is plenty of scientific evidence that comets originated not from the vacuum of space in some imaginary Oort Cloud, but from earth itself during the time of the global flood. According to the Genesis 7:11, “In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.” This is referring to water under the earth that shot out and flooded the world. Some of this water would have carried nearby rocks and dirt with it, and would have shot out high enough and fast enough to travel to outer space. Once it did, the water would freeze into comets.

As I mentioned above, there is tons of scientific evidence that comets came from earth, not the Oort Cloud. Please read this article for more info: The Origin of Comets.

Friday, October 24, 2014

See me speak on distant starlight!



On September 27, I went to the Creation and Earth History Museum for their annual Museum Day. It featured several speakers like Eric Hovind. One speaker was Bill Morgan. After his presentation of creation, I went to ask him what his thoughts were on the Catastrophic Plate Tectonics Model of the flood. He said that he didn't know what it was. So I explained it to him. That led to an in-depth discussion regarding specific topics in Creation science. Near the end of the conversation, Bill asked me to come and speak to his creation group at the church he attends. I was shocked that I would be asked to speak about creation and evolution. After getting permission from my mom, I told Bill that I would love to speak to his group.

On November 1, I will be speaking at Calvary Chapel WestGrove California as a guest speaker. This event will be hosted by Bill's class, "Creation Science Fellowship". The topic will be "What About Distant Starlight?" This is a free event (unless you want to eat pizza dinner, which is $1 a slice :-) ). Please consider coming to learn about all of the different theories about distant starlight, and what the evolutionists believe about the origin of stars.

Please Share.

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

A New Solution to Distant Starlight

Fellow Young Earth Creationists are perplexed as how starlight from billions of light years away could reach earth within the same day they were created. In this article, I propose an entirely new solution that is both biblical and scientific. I call this theory, “The Star Growth Theory”. In a nutshell, God created the stars and planets on creation week. When God made the stars, He caused them to supernaturally “grow”. This rapid growth would involve not only the appearance of the star, but also of the star’s light. As the star itself grew, the light beams also grew by shooting out very quickly. At the same time, God caused the star to move farther away from the earth. When the light arrived at earth, God allowed light to travel at its normal speed.

By having the star grow and change while the light shoots out, this theory explains why we see stars slowly change. Because the star was changing rapidly while the beam of light was travelling rapidly, there were different images of the star spread out throughout this new beam of light. Now that the light beam has been allowed to travel at its normal speed, and because different images of the star are fixed in the long beam of light, when we see the slow change of stars, we are really seeing the rapid growth of those stars on day four confined to the slow (by comparison), normal speed of light.

By having the star move farther away from earth while the star’s light shoots out, this explains the redshift effect we see in stars.

By having the beam of light travel quickly on one day, this theory explains the Cosmic Microwave Background, which is a mystery for both creationists and evolutionists. The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is radiation across the entire universe that is at a uniform temperature. In order for this to be so, light from one end has the travel to the other end of the universe to even out the temperature. Cosmic Evolution (i.e. the big bang) can’t explain this, because not even in 14 billion years can light travel from one end of the universe to the other with the normal speed of light. If beams of light traveled faster on day four, this could happen on the same day.

Some may object that the stars are billions of years old since they grew. But that isn’t true. Growth and age are two different things. When God created the plants, He caused them to be “brought forth” (Genesis 1:12), indicating the rapid growth of plants of day four, rather than creation from nothing. Were the plants hundreds of years old? No, they were one day old. Growth and age are different. While the stars did grow rapidly, their true age was only one day old.

So that’s my theory in a nutshell - the stars grew supernaturally on day four. So far as I have researched, this theory explains the Cosmological mysteries that we observe in the universe today, and is within the boundaries of Scripture.