Saturday, 22 December 2012


You might wonder, if biological chemistry that forms the basis for life is so complex and yet so marvellously effective at achieving its ends, why does not everybody see that it is the product of intelligent design? How can a host of academic minds be convinced of the absurd point of view that it all happened through a random non-purposeful process lacking in any form of intelligence? Dr Richard Lumsden was one of those academics He attained not only professorship at Tulane University, but also Dean of the Graduate School.

One year in the last lecture of a spring semester he deviated from his curriculum to do a lecture on the origin of life. As a Professor of Microbiology he had some authority in the field. In this lecture he mentioned Genesis as an alternate explanation to evolution. He did this with all "the mockery, sarcasm and cynicism" he could muster. You see he "had been mad at God for a long time..." So when he got an opportunity, he let God have it.

What do you think God did to him? Did he drop a rock from Heaven. I'll bet there were Christian students who were humiliated by his lecture. They may well have felt God was justified in dropping such a rock on his pointed little head. Not a chance. It was far more fun to pluck him from the devil's hands with the information held inside his own brain!

At the end of the lecture a student with a microbiology major, an anatomy major and a statistics minor said she had some questions. The Professor gladly invited her over to his office. She brought a legal pad full of questions and a stack of reference books. She asked about the diseases she had seen in anatomy class caused by mutations and asked how, when so many diseases and syndromes were caused by mutations, they could be a mechanism for a positive built-up of millions of mutations needed to transform one species into another species. He answered as best he could.

After that the student asked about the chemistry of the origin of life. In the microbiology course she had taken, the equations showed how water plus proteins yielded amino acids but in his evolutionary lecture he had stated that amino acids and water became proteins. Now which of these two is true? Well he really could not sidestep that one. On and on these questions went for over 3 hours. At the end the student arose and thanked the professor for all his clarifications. She was edified. The problem was the professor had listen to his own voice give all these answers to her questions and really could not accept his own answers as reasonable never mind true. His faith in the theory of evolution started to unravel. How could he believe in a theory whose defence he could not believe himself.

But wait God was not finished yet. His daughter went to university and received Christ there. She started going to church, to prayer meeting and to Bible study. Finally, his wife said that he had to speak to her. Well, that conversation turned into an invitation to come to hear the special speaker that Sunday morning. He went expecting the usual stereotypical religious stuff that he called mythology. Yet despite his resistance he too accepted Christ. I don't know whether there was more rejoicing or laughter in Heaven that day.

Today Dr Richard Lumsden explains to audiences how he and his arrogance were converted and how his evolutionary convictions were the product of persuasion in school long before he had the critical faculties to challenge it. You can listen to him on Youtube -

So just how good is Darwinism as a science, once you take away the advantage of educating children before they can reply intelligently? Apparently, it has little to commend it if a Darwinist professor's own poor answers are good enough to unpersuade him.

Alan Montgomery

Wednesday, 12 December 2012


On CFRA radio recently, John Counsel received a question on Ask the Pastor that was honest and interesting. Why could God not get over the sin of Adam and Eve's eating of the apple in the Garden of Eden? Why was it so unforgivable? Was God's reaction not over the top? I like questions like this!

John Counsel's response was disappointing. He went into how the sin of Adam and Eve was one of freewill and not subject to interference from God. Thus without human beings endowed with freewill God cannot receive freewill love. Since the only love that leads to genuine authentic relationship is freewill love, God is willing to surrender His control and power to stop sin in order that true repentance and freely-given love will be possible.

Fine thought, but it does not answer the question that was asked. The sin in this chapter of Genesis looks quite trivial to modern and post-modern thinking society. Would you react to your children the way God did if they violated curfew? It is not so easy to tackle this part of the question.

To understand what Adam and Eve's action and why God reacts in such stern terms you have to see what God sees. First, there are two realms on the Earth. There is the heavenly realm of God, which was brought to Earth in the form of the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve were given authority over it by God. The second realm was that of Satan, who had no authority to rule over the Earth. He was only a visitor.

God's realm is full of love, kindness, truth, mercy, abundance and justice. Satan's realm is full of hatred, lies, murder, fault-finding, shunning, bullying, fear, lack and injustice. So what should the choice of Adam and Eve be in regards to genuine love. Who proclaims it? Who actually demonstrates it? The answer is easy - God.

So God declares that one can eat of the fruit of the tree of life in the centre of the garden and may not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil because in that day they will die! So a loving God tells them to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil because bad things will happen. Thus when they meet the serpent in the Garden, he first asks, "Has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree in the Garden?'" Eve knows the answer. She can eat of any tree except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil nor is she to touch it lest she die.

Oh, oh. This is a half truth. God never said they would die for touching it! So what does Satan do? "See when you touch it you do not die. God is lying to you. Thus you cannot trust Him. If you eat it you will become wise like God knowing good from evil." Well he had her cornered. A demonstration of the touching the fruit proved God was lying. He was holding out on her! So she ate and having become wise like God she persuaded Adam to eat also.

But wait, what happens next? As Adam and Eve hear God walking in the Garden the next morning, they hide. Why? They have never hidden from God before. Yes, but before this they were friends with God and now they had disobeyed God. What would God do now that they had disobeyed him? They hid in fear of punishment. Punishment? Where did that idea come from? It came from having the knowledge of good and evil. This knowledge told them that if they violated the law they must die. So they hid from God expecting that if God found them they would have to die.

So did God take their life? Actually, the root word for die comes from the word for separation. Their hiding proved that in their hearts they had separated from God and thus were dead to God. So what was so bad about what Adam and Eve did? They judged that God was not telling them the truth based on  Satan's claim. But Satan was a liar. If they had believed God they would have reasoned that either (1) they misunderstood the command not to touch the fruit or (2) Satan was lying or (3) both 1 and 2.. But they did not. They traded a truth from God who had the character to prove his trustworthiness  for a lie from somebody whose character denied him any credibility. This is not a simple mistake. This is a violation of trust.

Furthermore, since they obeyed Satan, they became subjects to his nature. God had to provide a process to reverse that subjugation. This would mean the crucifixion of His Son. What would you do if somebody screwed up and it cost you your son's life? Would you have some severe words and consequences for this person. Would that be fair? What would your reaction be to somebody that said, "Chill out, it is only a mistake. Forgive and move on." Perhaps you might respond that you do not understand the betrayal of trust that this person has commited and to mind your own business!

So, was God's reaction "over the top"?

Alan Montgomery

Tuesday, 30 October 2012


My friend was checking out at the grocery store the other day and the young cashier suggested that he should bring his own grocery bags next time. She charged 5 cents for a plastic bag because her generation is working hard on saving the environment. "I'm sorry", he apologized, "We didn't have this 'green thing' back in my day." The young clerk responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations."

Our generation didn't have the 'green thing' in its day. 60 years ago, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled. But our generation didn't do the "green thing" back then.

Grocery stores bagged our groceries in brown paper bags. We reused them for numerous things besides household garbage bags. We used of brown paper bags as book covers for our schoolbooks. This was to ensure that the books provided for our use by the school was not scribbled on. Then we were able to personalize our books on the brown paper bags. But our generation didn't do the "green thing" back then.

We walked to the grocery store. We didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks.  We washed the baby's diapers because we didn't have the throwaway kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy-gobbling machine burning up 220 volts. Wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing. But our generation didn't do the "green thing".

When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap. thing". We didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity. But our generation didn't do the "green thing" back then.

We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull. But our generation didn't do the "green thing".

Back then we sang a song, "Before you accuse, criticize or abuse, walk a mile in my shoes." You see when we were the younger generation we also contemptuously judged our parents about their unprogressive ways. It was wrong back then too. It took us a couple of decades before we realized that life was not in things, ideals or progressive social programs. We began to realize that people made all the difference. 
When I began to mature my wife actually enjoyed me more day after day and then week after week. Then I started to focus on my children. They were harder to convince that I was a nice guy. They were mean at times. But, I was determined  to make a difference in their lives. I also started to realize that some of my emotional baggage was getting in my way. A decade later I could do some loving things I could not do before and it felt good.

One thing I stopped was correcting people all the time. I was good at that but people rarely appreciated my efforts. At this point I began to realize how hard it had been to change my bad habits and how unsuccessful I was at changing.  I called on God for mercy and it began to flow. And it felt good. A little more kindness and a little less of me. I am a little wiser now.

Many people who knew me 50 years ago probably would be shocked at how different I am now. That's Okay. I deserved most of what they dished out to me. It did not help me because what they gave me was criticism without mercy.  Many good deed "fads" and products have come and gone. Now it is the green thing. Yesterday it was saving the world from communism. Little did we realize that communism was its own cure. People hated it. That poor clerk thinks she is doing good in this world. Without Christ's love and mercy you can do nothing.

Now I am not so quick to condemn. Now I have grace. Now I have something that is not a fad but leads to everything eternal. Now I have Jesus.

Saturday, 20 October 2012


As I attended the funeral of my father-in-law I noticed his family all accepted death as part of life. There was no questioning that death ought not to be. Why if life evolved should there be death? There is no survival advantage to dying.

My in-laws are Christian. They look on death as a separation from their loved ones but they also know that death is union with God. Though they are saddened at the separation from loved ones they know that it is temporary. Death is thus a doorway into the eternal where there is no further death - no separation is ever permanent.

God promises that in eternity there will be  joy with no more tears, no more sorrow. That is what everybody wants. Well you would think that is what everybody wants. When you see how simple God makes it to enter the kingdom of God it is a wonder that everyone does not find their way into paradise. Jesus said that whosoever believes in me, even though his body dies, shall have eternal life. Now believe in this context is not mere intellectual consent. It means committing yourself to His ways rather than your ways or the ways of the world systems. It means following His lead every day of your life. Simple but not so easy. It does not take great effort, wealth, social prowess or intellectual acumen. It only requires that you be a "whosoever" that believes.

So how can we humans foul this simple command so badly? There are many people who imagine themselves to be above the "whosoevers" of life. I know I used to be one of them. Then one day my God said to me, why do you look down of those "whosoevers" for whom I died. Ooops! When God dies for you, you become important - you cannot be more important than God dying for you! God treats all the "whosoevers" as though we were royalty, sons of the King. We get respect because we reflect the image of God who created us. Looking down on anyone is not allowed.

There is nothing greater in life for humans than reflecting God's image. That is our glory! In the beginning there was no death. In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve had no fear of death because there was no death. So where did it come from? It came from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil - the one tree in the Garden of Eden that God commanded that we not eat of. When we know good and evil we pass laws to make people behave right. In doing so we divide humans into the law-abiding and the evil-doing. This requires that we, the law-abiding become the judges of the evil-doers. The relationships in this world become centered on performance of duty and avoidance of crime. But does that really work?

Islamic societies have one of the most rigorous law codes. It is used to control the behaviour of millions of Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Yet some of the most heinous unloving acts of cruelty are carried out by the very law-abiding clerics who supposedly love justice and God. The whole system fails. Love is expressed within relationships. It is not just a set of behaviours. Just because you conform to the dictates of the law does not make you one who loves.

Turning love from a relationship into a set of restrictions on behaviour is the beginning of the death of love and whose end is the love of death. This is the meaning behind the eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (Note the portrayal of this tree as a apple tree is an artistic rendition not in the text.)  It changes the whole human experience from one of a loving relationship with God and each other that is central to our life and living in a system of law and punishment - death.

And what do we call this legalistic system. God calls it death. He said that the day that you, Adam and Eve, eat of it, you will surely die. It is beyond what God planned and intended. Fair warning, yet Adam and Eve were fooled into eating it with the promise that they would become like God. But the serpent know they were already like God. What they got was a breach in their relationship with God and shame and guilt for betraying their friend. With that came a new nature. This nature is one that loves to disbelieve God. To overcome this evil nature requires faith. Faith undoes the work in humans that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil did.

Life then becomes a journey of daily making faith choices to follow the voice of God. This is only possible when God changes your unbelieving nature back to a believing nature in what Jesus described as being "born again". How do you become "born again"? Any step of faith from the darkness towards the truth that Jesus is the Christ is a "born again" moment that will change your nature. You may still have unbelieving paradigms resident in your head that cause you to sin but your nature is changed forever. As one with a believing nature your destiny is Heaven - always was and always will be. Overcome unbelief and you overcome death.

Tuesday, 31 July 2012


I sometimes meet people who are sure that the Bible contradicts itself. "Look around at all the evil in the world.", they say.  "Is that a sign of a 'good God'?" Or, "How can there are two contradictory accounts of creation in Genesis? It would be nice if the Christian reference books in my library held the answers but sometimes they cause the problems!

My Christian reference books endorse the idea that Genesis contains two versions of creation. The first version starts with "In the beginning".. and ends in Gen 2:4 and the second ends in Gen. 3:24. The reason for this is the opening statement in Gen 2:4b, "In the day that God made the earth and the heavens..."  This has been interpreted to mean that the story of creation is being retold. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Up until this point in the text the phrase in Genesis that represents creation has been the 'heavens and the earth'. Now the order is reversed. Why? Because the creation of the universe had been completed and a new emphasis was being introduced that was restricted to an earthly perspective. It would not have been appropriate to use the same phrase 'heavens and earth' when the creation of the universe was being described.

The second story is not about the creation but about the addition of something new to creation. It has been assumed that the end of God's creative work ended in the sixth day and on the seventh day He rested. And this is true. But it is not true that God ended His supernatural intervention into the natural order.

Gen 2:5 continues, "before any plant of the field had grown and before any herb of the field had grown." This is interpreted as the creation of the plants and herbs in Gen 1:29.  However, there is here one strange omission. In Gen 1:29 God created the seed-bearing trees. There is no mention of trees in Gen 2:5. If this is a creation account that would be a major omission. The second omission is the purpose of these plants. In Gen 1:29 the seed-bearing fruit is to be used for food. In Gen 2:5 no purpose is stated for the plants.

There is also a new assertion.  In Gen 2:5 it states it was the time before the plants and herbs had grown. This does not say before the time they were created. The second new  assertion is the reason they had not yet grown. God had not yet made it rain and man had not yet tilled the soil. What has this to do with the origin of these plants and herbs?

The word for plants here is 'siah' and the word for herb is 'esebh'. These two words also appear at the end of the story in Gen 3:17b-19, "Cursed is the ground for your sake; in toil you shall eat  of it all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles (siah) it will bring forth for you and you shall eat the herb (esebh) of the field. In the sweat of your face ye shall eat bread...".

It now becomes clear what the author is explaining. Verse 2:5 ought to read, "Before any thorns and thistles were in the earth and before the bread-making grains had grown up...". Or to make it even plainer; before Adam had sinned and the creation had been cursed by his sin so that thorns grew to thwart man's pleasure and before man was forced to wait for the rain and till the soil... The siah are different from the fruit-bearing trees and herbs in Genesis 1. They are not manifest before the creation of man. They are not yet grown until after God made it rain and man tilled the soil. This is not an In-the-beginning moment but a before-the-fall time.

The purpose of these chapters in Genesis is to explain an enigma to upcoming generations. Why did God declare that everything He made was good when He made it and yet there are thorns and thistles found in the earth.  This would appear to be a contradiction. As the story unfolds though it becomes clear that the sin problem has arisen. Adam must humbly admit that the flaws in creation are not God's doing but the supernatural outcome of the curse that falls on disobedience. This world's imperfections are the fault of man and not God.

We must all come into agreement with this truth. Many tragedies that happen in this age are avoidable if we believe and receive a lifting of the curse on the ground and the presence of the thorns through Jesus Christ. Jesus bore the thorns on His head on the cross so His people would not have to live out the curse. He sweated blood on Gethsemane so that His people would be set free from the sweating for bread. He is the bread you need.  God has provided it out of His grace and mercy.

Alan Montgomery

Thursday, 19 July 2012


While you were in school and still naive, your biology science textbook probably showed you the tale of  two biston betularia, or peppered moths. One moth was dark and was difficult to see on the dark tree trunk and the other was light and easily seen. Maybe they also showed you the reverse with a light tree trunk.Then you read in the textbook that the light tree trunks were common before the industrial revolution and made the light-coloured moths difficult to see. Thus the birds that prey on the moths ate more of the dark moths than the light moths and so the light moths became dominant.

Then came the nasty industrial revolution and the trees became black with soot from the industrial smoke, which made the light moths easily visible to birds and the dark moths hard to see. Bird predation led to the dominance of dark moths. Then environment reversed again and restored the dominance of the light-coloured bark and the light-coloured moths prevailed again. Evolution was proved NOT!

There are boundaries to natural selection and they were known from before the time of Darwin. Breeders in his day choose the visible traits of dogs, cats and horses, to decide which animals to mate. This produced collies and chihuahuas, Persians and Siamese, pintos and quarter horses but  never did it produce a new kind of animal. Only if you delete the requirement to produce new species can this be called evolution.  However, in this case you fail to explain the origin of species and that was the point of Darwin's book!

A leading British zoologist, L. Harrison Matthews, in the Introduction to the 1971 reprint to Darwin's Origin of Species, said: "The peppered moth experiments beautifully demonstrate natural selection—or survival of the fittest—in action, but they do not show evolution in progress, for . . . all the moths remain from beginning to end Biston betularia." The only change that has taken place is a change in the frequency of the dark and light genes in the gene pool. Merely reshuffling pre-existing genes is not evolution in the Darwinian sense. Using the peppered moth and "industrial melanism" as an example of evolution is intellectually dishonest.

The evolutionist's argument of the peppered moth commits the "Hey Diddle Diddle" fallacy. If I can train a cow to jump over a fence post a feet off the ground does not mean that I can make a cow jump over the moon. This is a feat of a different dimension entirely. Changing the gene frequency is different than changing the species genome. It is a different kind of change that cannot be achieved by selection alone.

Judith Hooper wrote the story about the fall of the iconic moth in a book entitled, Of Moths and Men. She noted in her prologue that she was not a creationist [1]. She had to say this to be taken seriously. Any comfort for the Creationists would be treason! She wrote, "Behind the story, like a monster lurking under a five-year-old's bed, is the bogeyman of creationism.[ibid]"

Well, just what was so bad that Hooper called it a scandal? Well the field worker for all this research, Dr. Kettleworth, never did see a biston betularia  on the bark of any tree. The moth apparently changed without the help of camoflage on tree trunks. The pictures you saw in your biology textbook were taken using dead moths pinned to the trees. The moths have never been seen on these trees by anyone. The whole story of natural selection of peppered moths by predator birds is a fanciful myth of evolutionists. If the evolutionists have the truth why do they need to invent myths to support their faith? The reason they invented this myth is that they did not have any real science that was better. That's what science teachers ought to put in biology science textbooks.

Alan Montgomery

Wednesday, 18 July 2012


Jesus walked along the busy shores of the sea of Galilee. He stopped at a boat that belonged to Simon. Until now, He told Simon, you have been a fisher of fish but I will make you a fisher of men. That would be strange enough for most of us but what happened next is stranger. Simon left his boat and his nets and followed Jesus. It perhaps does not strike us that this is strange because we understand the rest of the story. But it is indeed strange that a successful fisherman leaves his profession and becomes the disciple of an itinerant preacher.

Jesus approached the tax booth as he crossed the border. He told one of the tax collectors to follow Him and he does. Jesus is not collecting only fishermen. He then dines with Matthew's friends, the publicans and sinners. The difference between a tax collector and a fisherman is substantial in many ways and it would seem that Jesus is choosing a widely diverse group to train them to reach an even more diverse group.

There is a trend among in the West to accommodate strangers and foreigners.  Certainly, Jesus's approach to the Kingdom of God shows His desire to be inclusive."Whoever believes in me shall not perish but have eternal life." [John 3:16b]. Seems to be inclusive. Yet there is another time when His inclusivity is lacking. Jesus said, "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you.Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day." [John 6:53,54]. The response of some of his disciples was, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"[John 6:60].  Jesus replied to them. "Does this offend you?"

Indeed it did offend many. They began to leave. When I first read this I was expecting that Jesus would explain that he was speaking metaphorically and not to the natural realm. However, he did not. Through misunderstanding of Jesus, many went away and yet He did not stop them. My heart did not understand why Jesus did not want to save these people also.

Eventually, Jesus turns to Simon Peter and asks him why he is not leaving also. Simon Peter does not have any insight into what Jesus said either. He simply says, "Lord, who else has the words of eternal life?" Indeed who else does! The crowd (and I at that time) had an expectation that Jesus would explain things to us. After all, do not the advertisers, the professors and the politicians bend over backwards to explain why we should follow their point of view? But the advertisers, professors and politicians have agendas other than telling us the truth.

Why oh why Jesus, did you let these people walk away? I did not understand this for a season. Peter, though he failed to understand what Jesus said, did understand who Jesus was! This made a huge difference on that day. Though Jesus was not comprehensible on that day He was still the Christ, the Messiah. If you cannot trust the Messiah, who can you trust?

Jesus was preparing a group of 12 disciples to revolutionize the world. He needed people who understood who He was and the principles of spiritual living. One of the principles in spiritual living is that you are following Jesus; He is not following you. He is doing things you do not understand but He does them with you. His victories require unconditional following. That is what discipleship means. If you cannot follow Jesus unconditionally you will be held back one day by your lack of understanding. Jesus needed unconditional followers. So he let go those who put conditions on their following.

So is it possible to give Jesus your unconditional following? Only if you believe He is who He says He is.

Monday, 9 July 2012


There was great elation and much celebration last week as the CERN large hadron collider (the European atom smasher) announced they had detected the Hicks Boson - nicknamed 'The God Particle'.  A strange thing to celebrate perhaps, but then the God Particle has been eluding them for a long time. This has been the central quest for physicists since the H-bomb. It is the most expensive particle ever. In fact without this particle atomic physics will have to change in a radical way sending it back a century. This too may seem strange to the layman. The boson is theorized to cement the world of particle physics together and to provide the Big Bang cosmologists with the solution to the dark matter problem.This would put critics in their place.

In a previous blog, The Big Bang Never Happened, I mentioned Eric Lerner, a science writer who laments the failure of conventional physics to come to grips with physical reality, causality and unity. He says, "It would be satisfying if...I could present an alternative to fundamental physics which resolves the contradictions of the conventional physics. Unfortunately no such theory exists.[1]" What Lerner is talking about is quantum mechanics or particle physics.

In quantum mechanics the electron is an infinitely small spherical charge. Physically such an electron would explode and everybody knows it. Also particle physicists think that everything within the atom works on different principles than the everyday world. In the atom the position and energy of an electron, proton or neutron is determined by a probability function and not caused by some event! Furthermore, the quantum mechanics theory contradicts Einstein's relativity theory. The two cannot be true at the same time.

Thus logically the quantum mechanics electron is physically impossible, acts in defiance of a cause and effect and is not in unity with other accepted scientific theories. So even if the boson exists the problems facing  modern physics are considerable. What happened that physics ever got into such a muddle?

Back in the 19th century Faraday developed his laws about magnetism and electricity.. He was the first to understand that when electricity moved it created magnetic fields and vice-versa. These experiments were used to develop Maxwell's electrodynamics equations, but embedded in these equations was the simplifying assumption that the electron was a point particle. Everybody knew that this is not true, just convenient to obtain some useful results. However, a deeper problem was the unrecognized magnetic induction effect at high velocities. This effect was the reason for the development of Einstein's theory and his relativity factor, (beta = 1 / squareroot (1 - v-squared / c-squared).  A proper reformulation of Maxwell would have produced the same factor. Thus Einstein's theory was the fix necessary to correct the errors produced by Maxwell's simplifying assumption.

The problem was that not enough was known about the electron and it took over 50 years before somebody could propose a shape for the electron [2,3]. But the physicists like Bohr and Heisenburg went another way into quantum mechanics. It was not until 1990 that Bergman and Wesley resurrected the ring model of the electron [4]. His worked proposed a spinning charged ring in which its magnetic field pinched the ring to balance the electric pressure to keep it stable. It had the correct electron spin, magnetic moment, size and mass. The problem of infinitely small mass was solved.

The electrons were kept in positions in the atom where electric and magnetic forces balanced. This solved the problem why moving electrons did not radiate energy -they did not move. The Lucas model of the nucleus was constructed [5]. The spins of 1,500 isotopes and the half-lives of hundreds of radioactive isotopes were correctly calculated; something quantum mechanics cannot do. The structure of the atom and its nucleus was solved.

Hydrogen gas molecule
Nucleus of Oxygen-16

In quantum mechanics  a Higg's field and bosons are necessary to give mass to electrons. The spinning charged ring also yields a mass of the electron as the sum of their electric and magnetic energies divided by c-squared i.e. Einstein.  The problem of particle mass was solved without 'God' particle!

Now we are finally back to the Higgs boson aka the God particle. If the Higg's boson has not been found, physicists have no mechanism to explain mass in the atom and a major crisis will surely follow. Boson Crisis But then, given the work of Bergman, Wesley and Lucas who needs a Higg's boson? Well, the cosmologists need the Higg's boson because these particles are massive non-light-emitting particles - "dark matter" (See previous blog The Big Bang Never Happened. )

The mass of real particles like electrons and protons is about 2-4% percentage of the universe. The Big Bang cosmology needs 8 times more physical mass to fit the requirements of their theory. Without the Higgs boson, the Big bang is in real trouble - again. Michael Brooks, former senior features editor for New Scientist , wrote on the impending crisis. The energy  required for the cosmological constant in theory is much larger than measured in the lab unless some massive shift takes place in the composition of the universe. He states, "The cosmological constant problem is widely the (italics in original) most embarrassing mismatch between theory and experiment ever. [6]": 1 in 10 to the power 120,000. Oops! What part of 1 in 10 to the power 120,000 do they not understand!

With so much at stake I believe they will pronounce this as the God particle they are looking for. They have no choice. They cannot afford to admit that physicists have botched the last 100 years of research or see the last rational explanation of the evolution of the universe go down the tubes.

We Can Do Better Than That 1.0. The spinning charged ring model [7] is rapidly catching on with disenchanted physicists. Its appeal is it restores the atom to physical reality, causality and unity to other physical theories. Although Eric Lerner is not one, the model does fit all his demands for a new particle physics[1]: Resolve the conflict between Einstein's relativity with Quantum Mechanics; explain what particles exist and remain stable; give particles real shape and dimensions; explain how they can have mass and how is it measured; and explain which particles decay and why.  A theory that answers these questions puts quantum mechanics in the obsolete bin  (no longer needed) and the Big Bang in the better-luck-next-time jar.

Alan Montgomery

Sunday, 1 July 2012


Gideon was a man in a small family of a small clan. Nobody thought highly of him, except maybe mom and dad. In his day the Midianites had invaded and had so impoverished the Israelites that they cried out to God [Judges 6: 6]. And God showed up. The Angel of the Lord appeared to Gideon and said, "The Lord is with you, mighty warrior." Then Gideon made an offering of a goat and unleavened bread on a rock. Fire from the rock consumed the offering and the Angel disappeared.

God came to him again and instructed him, "Take the second bull from your father's herd, which is 7 years old. Tear down your father's altar to Baal and cut down the Asherah pole. Build a proper kind of altar to the Lord your God. Using the wood of  the Asherah pole that you cut down offer the second bull as a burnt offering." Wait a minute. The altar belonged to Gideon's father! Gideon's father is leading Baal worship! I checked the King James version and it is there also.What a choice to lead Israel against the Midianites.

Gideon took ten servants and did what the Lord commanded - at night when his father was asleep. Now the men of the town noticed the new altar and offering and the broken old altar. They wanted to know who was responsible. Well, as soon as they discovered it was Gideon, they were angry. The son of the priest of Baal had destroyed his father's altar and Asherah pole! They felt betrayed. They demanded that Gideon be killed.

Now Gideon's father had to choose between his son and his altar. Well, since Baal was not really god, it was not really a hard choice. He chose Gideon. But then he had to calm the anger of the mob. He said, "Are you pleading Baal's cause? [Judges 6:31]" In other words it was Baal who was insulted and humiliated. Surely he is strong enough to respond. This statement came from the priest of Baal so it looked like faith. Nobody could answer. So they said, "Let Baal contend with him".  It is up to Baal to punish Gideon. Since Baal was not god nothing happened and everybody understood it was time to worship the real God. Gideon's generation and his father's generation were now united.

One has to ask why these town people were so easily persuaded to leave Gideon to Baal. Well, they remembered the trouble Pharaoh had with a stuttering shepherd from the backside of the desert named Moses. He came to Egypt with his brother Aaron and went to Pharaoh to tell him to let God's people go. Remember his haughty arrogant reply. I don't know this God. Rulers were typically not impressed with the gods worshipped by their slaves. After all, if their god was so powerful, they would not be slaves!

But Yahweh was different. Ten plagues followed; each one prophesied by Moses. God cannot only punish without hindrance but tells you in advance of the punishment. Not only that but each plague came through something that the Egyptians considered as god. Frogs were gods; the Nile was god; gnats were gods. It seemed like the gods of Egypt were turning against Pharaoh, who was a god himself. Then God parted the Red Sea for Moses and the Israelites left free. Pharaoh and his army followed and were drowned. God's vengeance on Pharaoh was finished, complete and total. Whose vengeance is better: yours or His?

The lesson here is that God knows how to take care of His enemies. Using your anger to take care of God's enemies (or worse your enemies) is a snare of Satan to lock you into a vicious cycle of hatred and violence. If you let your enemy go and God does not punish him it is God showing His mercy. This mercy glorifies God and his goodness provided you do not rob Him of the opportunity. If God does punish him you will know your enemy refused God's mercy. You win both ways. Vengeance is for losers. Put it down.

Saturday, 30 June 2012

CAN'T YOU DO BETTER THAN THAT? 3.0 - Radiometric Dating

I know that some of you will flee from any talk about radiometric dating and that's fine. But you need to understand that this is a spiritual stronghold. When threatened, Darwinists will attack the Bible using the age of the Earth, intimidating the believers with scientific authority. I have seen it work.

You need not feel intimidated. They have real unresolved scientific problems they are not telling you. The following is only one. An article on radiometric dates written by Dr Andrew Snelling,  a creationist geologist, shows potassium/ argon is still unreliable for dating rocks. Unfortunately for Darwinists, 85% of the data used in their justification of evolutionary timescale comes from this method.

Radioactive dating involves elements which are unstable and give off energetic particles from the nucleus of atoms. This changes the atoms from one element or isotope to another. When this process is measured in the laboratory it shows the decay has a half-life pattern. Each radioactive isotope has its characteristic half-life and this can then be applied when these elements are found in the rock to measure its age. However, it is not the half-life that is the problem. What the scientists are measuring in the field is the ratio of the parent element to the daughter element. If the ratio is disturbed with another process the calculated age changes. The dating method works in the laboratory only because all other processes are eliminated. In nature this is not a given.

Potassium is a common element in lavas and other rocks and is the most frequently used method to date rocks. Potassium is the parent element and argon is the daughter element.   Argon is a noble gas. It occurs naturally in the Earth beneath the crust. It does not react with chemicals in the lavas and can quickly and easily escape the rock before it solidifies. Thus it was assumed at first that naturally occurring argon gas would not be trapped in the rock when it finally cools. Thus all argon detected could be used to calculate its age. Well, that turned out to be...well, wrong.

When argon is trapped in the rock the measured Potassium/ Argon ratio is lowered and yields a higher age.  So why not test lavas of historical dates and determine how big the problem is. Historically dated lava flows were studied by Dalrymple (1). His Potassium/ argon results are on the right: 
1. Hualalai basalt, Hawaii (AD 1800-1801)           1.6 Million years±0.16                                                                                1.41Million years±0.08 
2. Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily (122 BC)                         0.25 Million years±0.08
3. Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily (AD 1972)                       0.35 Million years±0.14
4. Mt. Lassen plagioclase, California (AD 1915)     0.11 Million years±0.03
5. Sunset Crater basalt, Arizona (AD 1064-1065)   0.27±0.09 Ma;  and 0.25 Million years±0.15

The smallest error in age in this group is 110,000 years for a 100 year-old lava - an 110,000% error.
In 1998 Snelling (2) reported the following data in regards to the "excess" argon problem. Reported results of  old K-Ar "ages" in recent or young volcanic rocks are as follows:
Kilauea Iki basalt, Hawaii (AD 1959)                                         8.5 Million years±6.8
Mt. Stromboli, Italy, volcanic bomb (September 23, 1963)         2.4 Million years±2
Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily (May 1964)                                             0.7 Million years±0.01
Medicine Lake Highlands obsidian, Glass Mountains (<500 years) 12.6 Million years±4.5
Hualalai basalt, Hawaii (AD 1800-1801)                                   22.8 Million years±16.5
Rangitoto basalt, Auckland, NZ (<800 years old)                        0.15 Million years±0.47 Ma
Anorthoclase in volcanic bomb, Mt Erebus, Antarctica (1984)     0.64 Million years±0.03 Ma
Kilauea basalt, Hawaii (<200 years old)                                     21±8 Ma
Kilauea basalt, Hawaii (<1,000 years old)                                  42.9 Million years±4.2; 30.3 Million year

All these are historical eruptions or ones covering historically datable sites. Other samples from the Pleistocene and dated by evolutionary assumptions, are also grossly in error. They all contain excess argon. Errors range up to 23 million %! It is now general wisdom that this is naturally occurring argon that has not escaped during the cooling of the lavas. It is impossible to separate the naturally occurring argon from the radioactive daughter argon.

Darwinists object to this creationist argument. They say this method does not work on such young rocks because it is too insensitive to the small amounts of argon involved, resulting in ages of zero years. Their response assumes zero ages for young rocks. It does not deal with the non-zero ages in the tables above. Furthermore, according to Genesis all the rocks are young and potassium/ argon should never be used!

Besides the fresh lava flows of known age, how do you know which rocks are young or old? The potassium/ argon method always gives "old" ages. Which rocks are actually "young" but contain excess argon and which are genuinely old?  We do not know. Are scientists using a method that cannot date rocks of known age in order to date rocks of unknown age. If so how much confidence can you put in their conclusions? Ouch!

Let us see how this works in an actual example. Leakey discovered an ape-like fossil in Africa. He thought this ape, Skull 1470, fit into the evolutionary history of man at about 3 million years ago. He called in experts in potassium/ argon dating. Samples of lava rocks called tuff were taken from the strata where Skull 1470 was found. There were five papers published, each of which concluded the fossil layer was about 2.9 million years old.

Later, opinion shifted and Skull 1470 was fitted into evolution at 2 million years ago. Again experts were hired and they found that the initial samples of lava were contaminated with excess argon. Ooops! The potassium/ argon dates were actually out by 1 million years. The fossil strata dated to 2 million years! How pleasing it must have been to Leakey to have unbiased scientists using objective accurate scientific methods to arrive at the date that had already been agreed upon by the Darwinists. It was doubly pleasing to see them do it twice.

Can't you do better than that!

Thursday, 28 June 2012


The problem with human beings is that they want their own way - all of us, not just the bad among us. Cain in the Bible is the story behind how we start off with our own ideas and but end up where God did not want us to be. In Genesis 4:3-5 we read,

In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord. And  Abel also brought an offering—fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering,  but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast (NIV).

Cain had received an invitation from God to make a sacrifice to Him. God wanted a relationship with Cain but sin stood in the way. He called both Cain and Abel to bring a sacrifice. In the New Testament we see Jesus is the appropriate sacrifice but in Cain's time God had provided for an animal substitute until He arrived. 

God saw that Abel had been obedient and had brought the right sacrifice - the firstborn of the flock - and looked on the obedience favourably. He also saw the disobedience of Cain and showed displeasure at it. 

Cain was angry. Why? Cain had brought the best fruits of his labour. This Cain reasoned ought to be acceptable to God but it was not. God knew what sacrifice was acceptable to Him. Cain's opinion was not required. The fruit of Cain's best labour was not what was required. What was required was a substitute for Cain's death which justice required in order to pay for his sin. This meant an animal had to die in his place. 

Cain did not want something or someone to pay for his sin. He was a good person and his willingness to give God a present that had cost him dearly should have been enough. His pride stood in the way of reconciling with God. In Genesis 4:6 we see God's response to Cain's anger.

Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast?  If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it. ”

God was willing to overlook his disobedience and his pride and offered again to accept him upon acceptable obedience. He got another chance. This was a good deal. Cain should have taken it. 

Once again, admitting he was originally wrong went too much against his pride and he refused. The result was as God said. Sin was at his door and it took him prisoner. So he went from being a sinner, alienated from God to being a prison of Satan and God's enemy. This has serious consequences.

 While they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him. 

The enmity between Cain and a righteous God turned into enmity between Cain and righteous Abel. He was jealous of Abel's favour and blessing. When God asked Cain, "Where is Abel?", he lied.
“I don’t know, ” he replied. “Am I my brother’s keeper?” 

Cain had gone from disobedience and pride to jealousy to murder to lying. You see sin is all connected. It is all unrighteous. God punished Cain. He exiled him from Eden and he went to the land of Nod and built a city that he named after his son. God marked him so that nobody would take vengeance on him.

When Jesus came to Earth He was met by John the Baptist declaring, "Repent for the Kingdom of God is near." He was a type of Abel. Jesus was baptized to fulfill righteousness in obedience to God. Others too heard and obeyed.

But there were also those priests, scribes and elders who challenged Jesus's authority. They refused to believe he had the authority to forgive sins despite his miracles. They became angry when he raised Lazarus from the dead. They turned against Him. They plotted against him and then they murdered him. Then, when he rose from the dead, they claimed the Roman soldiers guarding the tomb had fallen asleep, while the disciples stole the body. They lied. Forty years later the Romans came, captured the rebellious Jews and sold them as slaves around the world - exile.

Does this sound familiar? They showed disobedience and pride in refusing to accept God's requirements. Hatred and envy then led them to murder their brother. To cover the murder they lied and eventually were sent into exile. Yet, anybody who harmed the Jews was cursed, e.g. Germany. It is the story of Cain and Abel all over again! 

Let us remember above all that the same thing can happen to us if we are not obedient to God's requirements.

Wednesday, 27 June 2012


I bet most of you never heard of Bishop Kivengere. Neither had I before he came to speak at our meeting. The Bishop came from Uganda. He came to Canada after he had escaped Idi Amin, who had terrorized the land and purged it of opposition. Then egged on by radical Muslims he began persecuting Christians. Massacres followed. Then the Anglican archbishop was dragged from his home in the middle of the night by army troops and accused of disloyalty. The troops then shot him in front of his family.

It was soon discovered that the army was also looking for Bishop Kivengere. Christians smuggled him from house to house until he reached the border with Tanzania. He fled across the border in the jungle in the middle of the night. He came to Canada to raise money to help the many refugees from Idi Amin.

That night at St. Paul's in Toronto, he spoke on the woman with the issue of blood. This woman had spent her entire savings trying to find help for her condition. She had come to the end without effective remedy. Then God spoke to her heart and told her that if she could touch the hem of Jesus garment she would be made whole. This alone was a promise hard to believe after years of fruitless effort. But desperation breeds faith.

This was not the only bridge for her to overcome. As some of you know, those women who were menstruating carried the remains of a once potential life. For Jews to touch a dead body meant contamination with death. This meant that one could not enter the temple until they had been cleansed of this. Furthermore, any person touching somebody who had touched a dead body was also unclean. When the woman with the issue of blood went to touch the hem of the garment of Jesus she was carrying the fear that he would become angry with her for making Him unclean.

Despite this the woman pushed through the crowd, probably crawling on all fours and letting people step over her. When Jesus came close enough she lunged forward and caught the hem of his his garment. She felt the power of God flow through her body and her body restored to health. What a relief that must have been to her.

But then, Jesus stopped and asked, "Who touched me?" Asking this in a crowd of followers sounded crazy even to His disciples. Everybody is touching you! But Jesus had felt the power of God go out to heal somebody. Imagine her feelings of fear that it would be discovered that she was the guilty one, who had presumed to touch this holy prophet without first cleansing herself. It would matter not that this was impossible; that she had been unclean for years. But Jesus persisted. At last she confessed that it was her and hung her head.

Jesus made an example of her. He declared that her faith had made her well. Instead of anger Jesus expressed commendation. She did not understand that Jesus was God and God could not be contaminated. Not only that but God was expecting her to exercise her faith. By identifying her He was able to tell her that the healing belonged to her.It was not an accident. It was not a theft. It was not an indignity. It was a gift from her loving God. What a blessing! How could she have gone through the rest of her life not knowing and understanding that? She could not and she did not because of Jesus's love for her.

Bishop Kivengere was able to make this story come alive. The people he spoke about were not theological but real. They had real fears and real emotions. Kivengere was a humble Christian and had no pretensions of importance. He did not act like an important person but just a person. Then he said something I will never forget. I need to remind you that this was the 70's. Society was reforming in the wake of  the race riots of the 60's. The black nations of Africa had just emerged from western imperialism. They ejected whites from their countries on mass and spent much rhetoric lambasting the West for their horrendous crimes. (In return for Soviet aid) In the midst of this era Bishop Kivengere stood up and thanked us, the white countries, for sending our missionaries to bring the gospel to his country.  He said this with such sincerity that it stunned me. At that time I could not remember any black who had a kind word for whites in those days - not one. It was that extraordinary. I will never forget how he blessed us that day.

Monday, 25 June 2012


"One cannot solve a problem with the same thinking that created it." So stated Albert Einstein. Cosmologists today are a good example. The theory they have created has become a monster that has consumed their energies while giving them nothing but headaches. For those scientists who still believe in experimental results it is time to throw in the towel. Eric Lerner, a prize-winning science writer and author of the Big Bang Never Happened is one of these [1]. He thinks the Big Bang is a total disaster and I agree.

The Big Bang is not an explosion. It is an extravagant expansion of space-time. When space-time expands galaxies grow farther apart as though all the galaxies were travelling away from us simultaneously. It is assumed that the universe is homogeneous so that everything looks the same from any point in space and gravitational forces are similar.

By 1986 we knew this was not so. Groups of galaxies were grouped into clusters which were found to form a long snake-like string of clusters across the sky. Apart from this there were vast unoccupied regions of the universe. Under the available expansion rates and forces these complexes required 100 billion years to form. Ooops!

Gravitational forces are supposedly responsible for the formation of both galaxies and solar systems. Yet the planets in solar systems have velocities that decrease with their distance from the Sun. On the other hand galaxies have stars that have much the same velocity whatever their distance from the centre. Big Bang cosmologists find this anomaly hard to explain. 

Galaxy with stars with same velocity
Planets with varying velocity
 In addition, despite what you learned in school, big balls of hydrogen gas do not condense into solar systems. In order to form stars one requires a boost from an outside source, like a shock wave from an exploding star. Even this scenario has serious angular momentum problems. One has to wonder though how the first star formed. Oops!

The COBE satellite measured the Cosmic background Radiation from deep space. This is supposedly the light echo  of the early Big Bang. According to theory this energy radiation would not be perfectly smooth but small variations would exist in the energy from which the seeds of galaxies would eventually come. The COBE satellite data was disappointing to the theorists as it was 100 times smaller than expected. This created another problem for those trying to find the source of galaxies, galactic clusters and even larger structures.

Supernovas recently provided more data that required major adjustments to theory. Data indicated that expansion rates were higher than previously thought and Big Bang theories realized quickly that more energy was needed to provide the acceleration. This meant that star masses in the universe were grossly inadequate for the job. Even so-called "dark matter" which is invisible and radiates no energy, was inadequate. Thus "dark energy" was created to fill the hole. This "dark energy" composes 70% of the universes supply while "dark matter" supplies about 27% and real visible matter provides only 3% of the universe's actual energy. So what exactly is "dark mass" or "dark energy" made of? We don't know. And what does all this newly added energy and acceleration do to the age of the universe? Well, new acceleration rates mean we arrive at the here and now sooner. About 6 Billion years sooner. Oops!

Why do so many scientists agree on a theory that appears to predict almost nothing and keeps them constantly making major renovations with every new discovery. S.P. Langley once likened scientists to a pack of hounds that followed their leaders "nearly as often in the wrong path as the right one." [2] Portraying a highly educated group of scientists as a pack of "hounds" is hardly complementary in 1889 but it seems little has changed. Eric Lerner has proposed that the forces of electromagnetism played a significant role in the formation of the universe. This idea was proposed by Dr Alfven, a plasma physicist, in the last century. The advantage of plasmas is that they enjoy two forces electric and magnetic from which many more motions and formations can come. Its disadvantage is that its forces are smaller and therefore short-ranged. Laboratory plasmas exhibit some phenomenon that are seen in space.

Finally, the new expansion rate of the universe requires the reintroduction of the cosmological constant. (There is another story but not now.) The laboratory measurement of this constant differs from the actual by a factor of 10 to the power 120,000 [3]! Another disaster! Still Cosmologists cling to a theory that has never predicted anything right. Why? The best explanation I can give is that they are trying desperately to explain the universe without God.

In the beginning God created the universe out of nothing. No need for universal "big bangs" that happen just so to be fantastically creative or "big crunches" in defiance of the laws of entropy. No need for just so stories about just so constants, just so orbital radius, just so atmosphere and just so DNA that provide just what we need to thrive on this planet. Our life, our planet and our universe is the supernatural in origin. The more educated one becomes the more obvious is this conclusion. The only way to avoid this conclusion is to demand a different answer from the start - disbelief.

Monday, 11 June 2012


Human footprints at Laetoli
Is evolution supported by all the scientific evidence and creationism supported by none? The photo to the right shows human footprints at a place in Africa called Laetoli. It is famous among paleontologists and anthropologists because it is a short distance from the Olduvai Gorge where the Leakeys excavated for fossil ape-man. These footprints are fossilized human footprints.

Now before anyone accuses me of repeating opinions that are only held by naive uninformed creationists let me quote Tim White, an evolutionist, who wrote, "They are like human footprints. If one were left on a California beach today,and a four-year-old were asked what it was, he would instantly say that somebody had walked there. [D, Johanson and M. Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, Simon & Shuster, New York, 1981]"  .

The fossil footprints were discovered by Mary Leakey, also a legendary figure in the hunt for fossil ape-man, and dated to 3.7 million years. Dr Louise Robbins, an expert on fossil footprints, was asked by Mary Leakey to examine the Laetoli footprints. She described the trail's  footprints as that of a completely modern human.

Now this discovery puts the evolutionists in a logical bind. Either
(1) their opinion concerning the date of ape to human evolution is totally untenable or
(2) the dating of the strata where the footprints were found is totally wrong or
(3) the current theory of evolution is falsified.
This is a bad hair day for the evolutionists because none of these options is palatable.

If the date of the transition from ape to human is totally misconstrued then all the alleged fossil ancestors of humans (Australopithecus et al, including Lucy) discovered over the last 150 years must be discarded as not relevant to evolutionary theory.  Ouch!

Or, if the date of the stratum with the fossil footprints really belongs to the date of modern humans then it is only 100,000 years ago and not 3.7 million years old.  This would push back ape to human evolution to strata earlier than Australopithecus, where there are few ape fossils. Also, this embarrasses geologists as their dates for this stratum have been stretched 37 fold. And what about the agreement of radioactive isotope dating that is now only 3% accurate? Ouch!

Or, if the theory of evolution has been falsified they will have to join the creationists. Now which of these logical consequences do you think the evolutionists chose? None of the above! However did you guess? The position arrived at by the evolutionary community is that the footprints are not human because evolutionary theory does not allow it.

Well, then, what are they? They are footprints of Australopithecus Afarensis aka Lucy an upright-walking ape. How do they know Lucy walked upright? When Lucy was found the knee bone was so crushed and fragmented it was impossible to reconstruct. Fortunately, another knee-bone was found 2.5 kilometers away and 70 meters deeper in the stratum. It was decidedly human so its owner walked upright. Johanson decided it could only belong to Lucy. But wait, why would the knee bone not belong to the humans who made the Laetoli footprints? Evolutionary theory does not allow it.

So the evolutionists can now claim that, although the footprints look just like human ones and the knee looks just like a human one,  there is no evidence of humans living 3.7 million years ago. They further claim that this is pure objective science arrived at by impartially examination of the evidence. Creationism is just a belief system - nothing more and so Creationists have no scientific basis for claiming that man existed at that time. But this is true only when when evolutionary theory is used to forbid the possibility that man co-existed with Lucy!

Logically, the evidence can be explained two ways: Theory A, which says that the footprints belong to an ape or Theory B, which says that the footprints belong to a human. Real science looks at the consequences of the theories to understand what might differentiate the two. We might find a foot of Australopithecus that fits in the Laetoli footprints. Then Theory A is likely. No fossil foot of Australopithecus has ever fit into the tracks. Or you might look for human skeletal remains. If they exist then Theory B is likely. But when the evidence supporting Theory B was found, the evolutionists did not conclude that it was more likely. Instead they concluded that Theory A was true and consequently no evidence supported Theory B.

This is irrational. Many times in science two or more theories have reasonable explanations for the evidence. Evidence is evidence. No theorist can claim ownership of the evidence for his theory like some lotto prize and deny the legitimate use of it to other theories. It is illogical to argue that once a theory explains the evidence no other theory can provide a different explanation. When the interpretation of one theory forbids alternate theories it is not science.

Now you see why the claims that evolution is science and creation is religion are non-sense. It is a game played with loaded dice. No alternative theories are allowed. In religion we call this doctrine. Evolutionists have become priests and their theories have become doctrine.  They have formed a religion called Darwinism, that explains everything without God. The italicized statements above are  illustrations of this. Darwinism is a belief system opposed to creationism by its nature.  So who decided evolutionary theory owned all the scientific evidence leaving none for Creationists?