Your sermon of the week is Creation, Day 4 by John MacArthur from his series The Battle for the Beginning. We’ve been featuring this series every other week. The next installment will be in two weeks.
Creation vs Evolution
Sermon of the week: “Creation, Day 3” by John MacArthur.
Your sermon of the week is Creation, Day 3 by John MacArthur from his series The Battle for the Beginning. We’ve been featuring this series every other week. The next installment will be in two weeks.
Sermon of the week: “Creation, Day 2” by John MacArthur.
Your sermon of the week is Creation, Day 2 by John MacArthur from his series The Battle for the Beginning. We’ve been featuring this series every other week on DefCon. The next installment will be in two weeks.
Sermon of the week “The How, Why, and When of Creation” by John MacArthur.
Your sermon of the week is the third edition of John MacArthur’s The Battle for the Beginning series with a two-part message entitled The How, Why, and When of Creation.
Sermon of the week: “God – Creator and Redeemer” by John MacArthur.
This is the next installment on the subject of creation vs evolution by John MacArthur from his series The Battle For the Beginning. It is entitled God: Creator and Redeemer. Look for the next installment in two weeks.
Sermon of the week: “Creation – Believe it or Not” by John MacArthur.
We’re beginning a new series here on DefCon by John MacArthur on the subject of God’s creation (versus man’s theory of evolution) from his series The Battle for the Beginning. We begin with the following two-part message entitled Creation – Believe it or Not.
Creation: Believe it or Not (Part One)
Creation: Believe it or Not (Part Two)
Look for the next installment in two weeks.
What is man?
What is man that You are mindful of him? (Psalm 8:4)
Here’s the information behind this spectacular photograph of a “three-light-year-tall pillar of gas and dust“ from the Hubble space telescope.
NASA is releasing today a brand new Hubble photo of a small portion of one of the largest seen star-birth regions in the galaxy, the Carina Nebula. Towers of cool hydrogen laced with dust rise from the wall of the nebula. The scene is reminiscent of Hubble’s classic “Pillars of Creation” photo from 1995, but is even more striking in appearance. The image captures the top of a three-light-year-tall pillar of gas and dust that is being eaten away by the brilliant light from nearby bright stars. The pillar is also being pushed apart from within, as infant stars buried inside it fire off jets of gas that can be seen streaming from towering peaks like arrows sailing through the air.
Climate Change in Crisis
The shocking speed with which the climate change hoax has come unraveled has been a delight to watch. Recent revelations about the science behind it has shown it to be a joke and a scam.
- A hacker obtained e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England, which show collusion to distort data among environmentalist scientists from around the world, AKA Climate-gate.
- The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) claims that 40 percent of the rain forest would be destroyed by global warming are fabricated.
- An IPCC report states Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035, a “fact” according to World Wildlife Fund, which is a radical environmentalist group. Common sense says otherwise.
When supposedly reputable sources such as university researchers and UN organizations are shown to be lying and scheming for political agendas, the cause loses all credibility. Will all the skeptical scientists who were accused of being on oil companies’ payrolls receive apologies?
There are a couple lessons we can take from this:
- Science can be controlled. Unbiased, pure, peer-reviewed science is not a given as many people would have us believe. If there is a cabal of evil scientists hyping up the evidence for global warming, why is it so far-fetched that the same thing may be happening among evolutionary scientists?
- The ideas of men (even if they’re supposedly backed by science) come and go, but the Bible is trustworthy.
The Dawkins Delusion: Is There Evidence for Dawkins?
For those who follow the evolution vs. creation debate you know about one of Darwin’s most militant disciples, Richard Dawkins. Author of the book, The God Delusion, he spares few words in expressing his bitter hatred of even the remotest thought that there might be a creator or intelligent designer of the universe.
The question is, does Dawkins really exist and is there really any evidence for such a person? Are we sure that Dawkins really wrote the book The God Delusion, or is this just some hoax foisted upon gullible simpletons? Listen as Dr. Tommyrot explains how belief in Richard Dawkins is, in fact, a harmful delusion, and how it can be explained scientifically (note this is a parody).
Quotes (649)
To imagine, therefore, so small a thing as a bee, a fly, a grain of corn, or an atom of dust, can be made out of nothing, would stupefy any creature who considered it. But how much more is it to behold the heavens, with all the troops of stars; the earth, with all its embroidery; and the sea with all her inhabitants of fish; and man, the noblest creature of all, and all to have risen out of the womb of mere emptiness.
– Stephen Charnock
1628 – 1680
The Mysterious Islands.
Coming soon: The Mysterious Islands.
Evolutionists: Spreading Ignorance and Superstition for 150 Years
According to evolutionary theory, a vestigial organ is an organ that evolved to serve our ancestors, but as evolution marched on, it became useless and now serves little or no purpose. Of course to a creationist, who believes animals and humans were designed by God about 6,000 years ago, that is absurd.
One of the most famous examples of a vestigial organ, given in many science textbooks, is the appendix. About 1 in 20 people have had an appendix removed in necessary surgery. Most of them go on to live long lives. But does that mean that the appendix is completely useless? No. If my left arm were removed, I could live a long, happy life, but that wouldn’t mean my arm was vestigial.
It turns out that the appendix serves a purpose in the immune system. Creationists have been telling us this for some time , but it seems the secular scientific community has recently decided to leak this information. All of those enlightened geniuses who love to cite the vestigial appendix as a favorite piece of evidence now stand side-by-side with “backward-thinking” Christians.
How many people have been deceived by atheistic science, which is not science at all?
Jesus Was a Young Earth Creationist
Some Christians believe that Genesis 1–11—the story of the creation, flood and tower of Babel— are symbolic, and the events didn’t really happen the way the Bible plainly describes them. No doubt many of these individuals are sincere and searching for the truth, while others have just gone along with what they’ve learned in school without putting much thought into the matter.
A couple theories try to fit billions of years into the Genesis account.
- The Day-Age Theory suggests that the days described in Genesis 1 were long periods of time. Many who adhere to this theory, including Hugh Ross, believe that the flood wasn’t global.
- The Gap Theory proposes that there was a long period of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. During this time, Satan fell, and the dinosaurs were created, lived and went extinct.
Some Christians try to combine evolution with those theories; some don’t. Some believe this first section of the Bible is merely a nice story and chose to believe in evolution. What they may not realize is that evolution is filled with blatant flaws, and that the theory and the Bible are mutually exclusive. Genesis 1 tells us that God created birds on day five and reptiles on day six—the exact opposite of evolution.
I think that the vast majority of those who believe any of the old Earth theories have more faith in science than the Bible. Because of that, they try to make the Bible fit with their beliefs, not recognizing the importance of conforming one’s beliefs to God’s Word.
We have an inerrant book that tells us how old the Earth is. We need to figure out what it tells us and believe it. There are plenty of hints elsewhere in the Bible, including Jesus’ words. I trust Jesus for my eternity, and I trust what He says about the age of the earth. He wasn’t just present when it was all created, He is the Creator (Colossians 1:16).
In Mark 10:6, Jesus said, “But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.” This means that at the beginning of creation, God created a human male and a human female. With this one sentence, Jesus rules out all old Earth theories—and evolution.
Elsewhere in the Bible, the events in Genesis 1–11 are referred to as historical fact. Jesus referred to Noah’s flood in Matthew 24:37–39, as does Hebrews 11:7, 1 Peter 3:20, 2 Peter 2:5, and several other places in the Old Testament. If you believe Zechariah was a real person, you must believe Adam and Eve had a son named Abel, since Jesus refers to Zechariah and Abel in the same breath in Luke 11:50–51. In the midst of giving Moses the Ten Commandments, the Lord repeats that everything was created in six days (see Exodus 20:11).
The old Earth theories simply make no sense. Anyone who simply reads Genesis with no bias would reach the conclusion that the creation is very young. When you take the clear teaching of the rest of the Bible, there is simply no basis for anything but a young earth. The Bible simply knows nothing of the old Earth theories, and forges on with the unpopular notion that the earth was created in six literal days about 6,000 years ago.
What exactly IS a “unicorn” anyway?
![]()
We hear from the skeptics so often, that the Bible can’t be trusted because it talks about “unicorns.” The word “unicorn” comes from the Greek Septuagint (LXX) rendering the Hebrew word raeim as monokeros, meaning “one horn.” And, of course, it is a lightning rod for those who fancy themselves as intellectuals, yet are too smart for their own good. Various translations over the years have rendered it in many different ways:
- Unicorn (Bishop’s Bible, Geneva Bible, KJV)
- Wild ox (NKJV, ESV)
- Rhinoceros (Dhouey-Rheims)
- Buffalo (Darby)
At any rate, let’s take a look at just what a “unicorn” is. He is found 9 times in Scripture. Here are 4 of those times:
Numbers 23:21-22—He hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither hath he seen perverseness in Israel: the LORD his God is with him, and the shout of a king is among them. God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.
Numbers 24:8—God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows.
Job 39:9-10—Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he [plow] the valleys after thee?
Psalm 92:9-10—For, lo, thine enemies, O LORD, for, lo, thine enemies shall perish; all the workers of iniquity shall be scattered. But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.
So from these words we can see the following about this “unicorn”:
- He was strong
- He is untamed
- He is capable of plowing large areas
- His horn must have also been rather large
Keil and Delitzch–whose commentaries on the Hebrew of the Old Testament (written in the 1800’s) would be a great help to any who use them–contend that the refernce is to an oryx. Of this oryx they say:
The oryx also appears on Egyptian monuments sometimes with two horns, but mostly with one variously curled; and both Aristotle (Note: Vid., Sundevall, Die Thierarten des Aristoteles (Stockholm, 1863), S. 64f.) and Pliny describe it as a one-horned cloven-hoof; so that one must assent to the supposition of a one-horned variety of the oryx (although as a fact of natural history it is not yet fully established), as then there is really tolerably certain information of a one-horned antelope both in Upper Asia and in Central Africa.
Not to sound like I know more than these gentlemen, but–well, like one fellow I know puts it, give science enough time and they will catch up with the Bible. Keep reading and you’ll understand what I’m getting at. Anyway, if you’ve ever seen pictures of an oryx–well, does this look like a huge beast with great strength capable of plowing an entire valley:

Yeah, it’s a good-sized animal. And it does tend to fit the description of the animal referred to in Psalm 29:5-6—The voice of the LORD breaketh the cedars; yea, the LORD breaketh the cedars of Lebanon. He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn. But does it look like something that fits the descriptions listed in the other Scriptures? Not quite. It certainly doesn’t look like an animal one would use to plow an entire valley with (a small plot of land, maybe, but not a whole valley).
Richard Dawkins: How to successfully avoid a question by not answering the question.
Richard Dawkins is dumbfounded after being asked to “give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome” – quite a reasonable question that one would expect Oxford University’s Professor for the Public Understanding of Science – so adamant in his belief in evolution – could and would provide an answer for. He then responds but DOES NOT answer the question that was asked of him. Why? Because he has no idea when it comes to processes that add information to the genome – the very premise of what he proclaims!! His writings claiming that he was not stumped are a desperate endeavour to cover his cowardly tracks (and on a further note, his writings don’t cover any of these “information adding” processes either).
Creation vs Evolution.
Quotes (520)
If man is merely the result of a cosmic accident, there is no inherent dignity or value in human life. In fact, it was this type of evolutionary thinking that led to the atrocities of the Nazi regime in Hitler’s Germany. If there are races of people who represent a higher level of evolution than others, then it is incumbent on the more evolved race to dominate and/or exterminate the less evolved. While most secular humanists would abhor such thinking, my question to them would be, on what grounds?
– Voddie Baucham
Quotes (507)
If man is merely a glorified single-celled organism run amok, he has no inherent worth, value, or dignity; ultimately man is then merely a cosmic accident, and the human community bestows any value he has upon him. It is not difficult to see how this would lead to a radical view on abortion. Peter Singer, a renowned bioethicist at Princeton University, argues that abortion should be legal prior to “personhood.” What makes this shocking is that Singer’s definition of personhood would carry the abortion question not into the second or third trimester of a pregnancy but into the second year after birth. That’s right, by Singer’s definition my thirteen-month-old son (due to the fact that he cannot communicate or sustain his own life without help) has not yet reached personhood, and to take his life now would be no more problematic than a pre-birth abortion. While this is shocking, I must ask a question: What is the difference between my thirteen-month-old son and a six-month-old fetus? The answer is, location. If it is acceptable to kill a child in the womb, it is also acceptable to do so outside the womb. Peter Singer is not being morbid, he is being consistent.
– Voddie Baucham
An Atheist admits what we’ve known all along.
Atheist Michael Ruse from Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians from the May 13, 2000 National Post said the following:
Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion–a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint . . .the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
As cited from Acts & Facts November 2008, page 13
The Miraculous Evolution of the Giraffe
It’s that time of year again—time to make preparations for the big day. It’s a day when foolishness is celebrated, and pranksters run amok. It’s National Atheist’s Day, better known as April Fools’ Day. Today we’ll look at one of Charles Darwin’s most far-fetched theories—a theory even a child can laugh at. This is one that’s only suited for a holiday as foolish as National Atheists Day: the evolution of the giraffe.
Darwin speculated on the evolution of the giraffe:
“So under nature with the nascent giraffe, the individuals which were the highest browsers, and were able during dearths [drought] to reach even an inch or two above the others, will often have been preserved…for they will have roamed over the whole country in search of food….Those individuals which had some one part or several parts of their bodies rather more elongated than usual, would generally have survived. These will have intercrossed [bred] and left offspring, either inheriting the same bodily peculiarities, or with a tendency to vary again in the same manner; whilst the individuals, less favoured in the same respects will have been the most liable to perish…By this process long continued…it seems to me almost certain that any ordinary hoofed quadruped might be converted into a giraffe.”
According to Darwin, during a period of drought, the tallest gazelles (for example) would have had food to eat, while the shorter gazelles would have starved. The taller gazelles would have had taller offspring, and eventually, after millions of generations, gazelles became the giraffes we have today. Let’s play along with Darwin and see where his idea takes us.
While all of Africa’s other grazing animals seem to have done quite well, the shorter gazelles that weren’t quite as tall as their cousins starved. What caused them, specifically, to starve to death? Maybe, in seeing their fellow creatures eat leaves from tall trees, they were too proud to lower their heads to eat grass. This may seem plausible until we recognize that all grazing animals (including modern giraffes) bend down to drink water. Darwin, however, maintains they died of starvation—not thirst.
Since only the tallest giraffes survived, all the females also must have died, as females are on average two feet shorter than the males. How exactly, then, do giraffe’s reproduce today?
Another Huge Problem
The giraffe’s heart generates enormous pressure in order to pump blood all the way up its long neck to its brain. Were it not for its complex blood pressure regulating system, when a giraffe bent over, it would suffer serious brain damage. If it managed to bend over without dying, it wouldn’t be able raise its head again. Its brain would suffer from a sudden lack of oxygen, and it would pass out. Here’s a four minute video with more info on that:
Furthermore, after a century of intense fossil exploration, no intermediate forms are on display in any museum in the world. The billions of giraffazelles have kept their remains well hidden. There is no intermediate form linking the giraffe to any other creature.
If you still believe that giraffes evolved, you may want to check yourself into a mental institution, or the biology Ph.D. program at a university. There are few other places where such fairy tales are believed. But keep your chin up. National Atheist’s Day is right around the corner.


