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
Wednesday, 12 December 2012
Tuesday, 30 October 2012
DO YOU WANT TO BE GREEN?
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.
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.
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.
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
WHY DEATH?
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
WHY ARE THERE THORNS?
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
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
THE MYTH OF THE PEPPERED MOTH
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
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
THE FOLLOW-ME JESUS
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.
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
THE GOD PARTICLE AND THE BIG BANG
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.
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. http://alphaomegah.blogspot.ca/2012/06/normal-0-false-false-false-en-ca-x-none.html )
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 accepted...as 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
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. http://alphaomegah.blogspot.ca/2012/06/normal-0-false-false-false-en-ca-x-none.html )
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 accepted...as 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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)