A Den of Thieves

 

Image source: https://madainproject.com/antonia_fortress_according_to_josephus

Jesus said to the Jewish religious leaders in Matthew 21, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you make it a den of robbers.” What is here talking about here?

Some have argued that this means you should not have a book stall, or coffee shop at Church. But this is talking about something much more profound than that. Jesus is saying that the religious leaders of his day had turned his Father’s house into a corrupt business precinct that was being overtaken by thieving merchants, money lenders/money changers, and other corrupt people. They were taking advantage of people who were coming to worship God at his Father’s house, the temple in Jerusalem.

But he was also talking prophetically here. He was also talking about what would happen in the days when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans. Jesus is prophesying who would take over the temple. 

Here is an extended quote from Josephus’ book The Wars of the Jews, that helps explain this:

CHAPTER 3. Concerning John Of Gischala. Concerning The Zealots And The

High Priest Ananus; As Also How The Jews Raise Seditions One

Against Another [In Jerusalem].

1. Now upon John's entry into Jerusalem, the whole body of the people were in an uproar, and ten thousand of them crowded about every one of the fugitives that were come to them, and inquired of them what miseries had happened abroad, when their breath was so short, and hot, and quick, that of itself it declared the great distress they were in; yet did they talk big under their misfortunes, and pretended to say that they had not fled away from the Romans, but came thither in order to fight them with less hazard; for that it would be an unreasonable and a fruitless thing for them to expose themselves to desperate hazards about Gischala, and such weak cities, whereas they ought to lay up their weapons and their zeal, and reserve it for their metropolis. But when they related to them the taking of Gischala, and their decent departure, as they pretended, from that place, many of the people understood it to be no better than a flight; and especially when the people were told of those that were made captives, they were in great confusion, and guessed those things to be plain indications that they should be taken also. But for John, he was very little concerned for those whom he had left behind him, but went about among all the people, and persuaded them to go to war, by the hopes he gave them. He affirmed that the affairs of the Romans were in a weak condition, and extolled his own power. He also jested upon the ignorance of the unskillful, as if those Romans, although they should take to themselves wings, could never fly over the wall of Jerusalem, who found such great difficulties in taking the villages of Galilee, and had broken their engines of war against their walls.

2. These harangues of John's corrupted a great part of the young men, and puffed them up for the war; but as to the more prudent part, and those in years, there was not a man of them but foresaw what was coming, and made lamentation on that account, as if the city was already undone; and in this confusion were the people. But then it must be observed, that the multitude that came out of the country were at discord before the Jerusalem sedition began; for Titus went from Gischala to Cesates, and Vespasian from Cesarea to Jamnia and Azotus, and took them both; and when he had put garrisons into them, he came back with a great number of the people, who were come over to him, upon his giving them his right hand for their preservation. There were besides disorders and civil wars in every city; and all those that were at quiet from the Romans turned their hands one against another. There was also a bitter contest between those that were fond of war, and those that were desirous for peace. At the first this quarrelsome temper caught hold of private families, who could not agree among themselves; after which those people that were the dearest to one another brake through all restraints with regard to each other, and every one associated with those of his own opinion, and began already to stand in opposition one to another; so that seditions arose every where, while those that were for innovations, and were desirous of war, by their youth and boldness, were too hard for the aged and prudent men. And, in the first place, all the people of every place betook themselves to rapine; after which they got together in bodies, in order to rob the people of the country, insomuch that for barbarity and iniquity those of the same nation did no way differ from the Romans; nay, it seemed to be a much lighter thing to be ruined by the Romans than by themselves.

3. Now the Roman garrisons, which guarded the cities, partly out of their uneasiness to take such trouble upon them, and partly out of the hatred they bare to the Jewish nation, did little or nothing towards relieving the miserable, till the captains of these troops of robbers, being satiated with rapines in the country, got all together from all parts, and became a band of wickedness, and all together crept into Jerusalem, which was now become a city without a governor, and, as the ancient custom was, received without distinction all that belonged to their nation; and these they then received, because all men supposed that those who came so fast into the city came out of kindness, and for their assistance, although these very men, besides the seditions they raised, were otherwise the direct cause of the city's destruction also; for as they were an unprofitable and a useless multitude, they spent those provisions beforehand which might otherwise have been sufficient for the fighting men. Moreover, besides the bringing on of the war, they were the occasions of sedition and famine therein.

4. There were besides these other robbers that came out of the country, and came into the city, and joining to them those that were worse than themselves, omitted no kind of barbarity; for they did not measure their courage by their rapines and plunderings only, but preceded as far as murdering men; and this not in the night time or privately, or with regard to ordinary men, but did it openly in the day time, and began with the most eminent persons in the city; for the first man they meddled with was Antipas, one of the royal lineage, and the most potent man in the whole city, insomuch that the public treasures were committed to his care; him they took and confined; as they did in the next place to Levias, a person of great note, with Sophas, the son of Raguel, both which were of royal lineage also. And besides these, they did the same to the principal men of the country. This caused a terrible consternation among the people, and everyone contented himself with taking care of his own safety, as they would do if the city had been taken in war.

5. But these were not satisfied with the bonds into which they had put the men forementioned; nor did they think it safe for them to keep them thus in custody long, since they were men very powerful, and had numerous families of their own that were able to avenge them. Nay, they thought the very people would perhaps be so moved at these unjust proceedings, as to rise in a body against them; it was therefore resolved to have them slain accordingly, they sent one John, who was the most bloody-minded of them all, to do that execution: this man was also called "the son of Dorcas," in the language of our country. Ten more men went along with him into the prison, with their swords drawn, and so they cut the throats of those that were in custody there. The grand lying pretence these men made for so flagrant an enormity was this, that these men had had conferences with the Romans for a surrender of Jerusalem to them; and so they said they had slain only such as were traitors to their common liberty. Upon the whole, they grew the more insolent upon this bold prank of theirs, as though they had been the benefactors and saviors of the city.

6. Now the people were come to that degree of meanness and fear, and these robbers to that degree of madness, that these last took upon them to appoint high priests. 4 So when they had disannulled the succession, according to those families out of which the high priests used to be made, they ordained certain unknown and ignoble persons for that office, that they might have their assistance in their wicked undertakings; for such as obtained this highest of all honors, without any desert, were forced to comply with those that bestowed it on them. They also set the principal men at variance one with another, by several sorts of contrivances and tricks, and gained the opportunity of doing what they pleased, by the mutual quarrels of those who might have obstructed their measures; till at length, when they were satiated with the unjust actions they had done towards men, they transferred transferred their contumelious behavior to God himself, and came into the sanctuary with polluted feet.

7. And now the multitude were going to rise against them already; for Ananus, the ancientest of the high priests, persuaded them to it. He was a very prudent man, and had perhaps saved the city if he could but have escaped the hands of those that plotted against him. These men made the temple of God a strong hold for them, and a place whither they might resort, in order to avoid the troubles they feared from the people; the sanctuary was now become a refuge, and a shop of tyranny. They also mixed jesting among the miseries they introduced, which was more intolerable than what they did; for in order to try what surprise the people would be under, and how far their own power extended, they undertook to dispose of the high priesthood by casting lots for it, whereas, as we have said already, it was to descend by succession in a family. The pretense they made for this strange attempt was an ancient practice, while they said that of old it was determined by lot; but in truth, it was no better than a dissolution of an undeniable law, and a cunning contrivance to seize upon the government, derived from those that presumed to appoint governors as they themselves pleased.

8. Hereupon they sent for one of the pontifical tribes, which is called Eniachim, and cast lots which of it should be the high priest. By fortune the lot so fell as to demonstrate their iniquity after the plainest manner, for it fell upon one whose name was Phannias, the son of Samuel, of the village Aphtha. He was a man not only unworthy of the high priesthood, but that did not well know what the high priesthood was, such a mere rustic was he! yet did they hail this man, without his own consent, out of the country, as if they were acting a play upon the stage, and adorned him with a counterfeit thee; they also put upon him the sacred garments, and upon every occasion instructed him what he was to do. This horrid piece of wickedness was sport and pastime with them, but occasioned the other priests, who at a distance saw their law made a jest of, to shed tears, and sorely lament the dissolution of such a sacred dignity.

9. And now the people could no longer bear the insolence of this procedure, but did all together run zealously, in order to overthrow that tyranny; and indeed they were Gorion the son of Josephus, and Symeon the son of Gamaliel, who encouraged them, by going up and down when they were assembled together in crowds, and as they saw them alone, to bear no longer, but to inflict punishment upon these pests and plagues of their freedom, and to purge the temple of these bloody polluters of it. The best esteemed also of the high priests, Jesus the son of Gamalas, and Ananus the son of Ananus when they were at their assemblies, bitterly reproached the people for their sloth, and excited them against the zealots; for that was the name they went by, as if they were zealous in good undertakings, and were not rather zealous in the worst actions, and extravagant in them beyond the example of others.

10. And now, when the multitude were gotten together to an assembly, and every one was in indignation at these men's seizing upon the sanctuary, at their rapine and murders, but had not yet begun their attacks upon them, [the reason of which was this, that they imagined it to be a difficult thing to suppress these zealots, as indeed the case was,] Ananus stood in the midst of them, and casting his eyes frequently at the temple, and having a flood of tears in his eyes, he said, "Certainly it had been good for me to die before I had seen the house of God full of so many abominations, or these sacred places, that ought not to be trodden upon at random, filled with the feet of these blood-shedding villains;…”[1]

When Jesus said his fathers house had become a den of robbers, he was being very literal. That is exactly what had begun to happen already in his day, probably before it really. And this culminated in the temple becoming an open den of an actual band of roving thieves who were some of the main antagonists in the Wars of the Jews against Rome. These thieves took over the temple because it was the most secure fortress possible in Jerusalem. And in doing so they brought into the house of God “so many abominations.”

Many Christians just assume the abomination of desolation was the Roman’s marching up on Jerusalem. But they are in correct. The abomination of desolation began with the revolutionaries of Israel who defiled the temple. The high priest, who was also a revolutionary, tried to stop them, so did many of the other people of Jerusalem. But they were not able to. The Romans of course played their part by utterly destroying the temple once they had beaten the revolutionaries.

But the abomination began when God’s own people allowed themselves to become corrupted. Let the Church understand the lesson for us today, as we are now the temple of God.

“19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body” (1 Cor. 6:19).

List of References

---

[1] Josephus, Flavius. The Wars of the Jews; or the history of the destruction of Jerusalem (pp. 305-310). Kindle Edition.

Galatians 1 – No Other Gospel

 

You can watch the video of this study live at 8pm tonight on YouTube (here). 

(Passage)

English Standard Version

Greeting

1 Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— ² and all the brothers^[a] who are with me,

To the churches of Galatia:

³ Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, ⁴ who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, ⁵ to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen.

No Other Gospel

⁶ I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— ⁷ not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. ⁸ But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. ⁹ As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

¹⁰ For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant^[b] of Christ.

Paul Called by God

¹¹ For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel.^[c] 12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. ¹³ For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. ¹⁴ And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. ¹⁵ But when he who had set me apart before I was born,^[d] and who called me by his grace, ¹⁶ was pleased to reveal his Son to^[e] me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone;^[f] 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.

¹⁸ Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. ¹⁹ But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother. ²⁰ (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!) ²¹ Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. ²² And I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. ²³ They only were hearing it said, “He who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” ²⁴ And they glorified God because of me.

Footnotes

1. Galatians 1:2 Or brothers and sisters. In New Testament usage, depending on the context, the plural Greek word adelphoi (translated “brothers”) may refer either to brothers or to brothers and sisters; also verse 11
2. Galatians 1:10 For the contextual rendering of the Greek word doulos, see Preface
3. Galatians 1:11 Greek not according to man
4. Galatians 1:15 Greek set me apart from my mother's womb
5. Galatians 1:16 Greek in
6. Galatians 1:16 Greek with flesh and blood

Analysis

Analysis of Galatians Chapter 1 (ESV)

Background and Context:

The Letter to the Galatians is one of Paul's most passionate and urgent epistles. Martin Luther saw it as the most important letter in the New Testament, and as the greatest defense of the gospel of salvation by faith through grace. It was written to a group of churches in the Roman province of Galatia (in modern-day Turkey) that were facing a critical theological crisis. The Galatians were Gauls, that is Celts. Distant relatives of the Gallic French and the Britons and Irish peoples. The Celts were once the dominant people across Europe, but were largely replaced by the Germanic tribes who are still dominant today. After Paul had established these churches by preaching the gospel of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, a group often called the "Judaizers" arrived. These individuals were teaching that to be truly part of the people of God and receive the blessings of Abraham, chief of which is salvation, Gentile Christians must also adhere to the Mosaic Law, particularly the rite of circumcision.

This "different gospel" (1:6) struck at the very heart of Paul's message and, in his view, nullified the sufficiency of Christ's work on the cross. Galatians is Paul's vigorous, uncompromising defense of the true gospel and his apostolic authority to preach it. But what is often missed by Christians is that he grounds his argument for salvation in the wider context of how justification makes us full members of the body of Christ.

Chapter 1 Analysis:

Galatians 1 serves as the powerful opening salvo in this defense. It can be divided into three main sections:

1. Introduction and Astonishment (Verses 1-10):
• Unique Greeting (v. 1-5): Unlike his other letters, Paul immediately establishes his authority. He is an apostle, "not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father." This is a direct challenge to the Judaizers who likely questioned his credentials. The greeting is abrupt, lacking his usual thanksgiving for the recipients, signalling the letter's severe tone.
• The Core Issue: A Different Gospel (v. 6-10): Paul expresses "astonishment" that the Galatians are so quickly deserting the one who called them for a "different gospel." He pronounces a double curse (anathema) on anyone, even an angel from heaven, who preaches a gospel contrary to what they first received. This establishes the absolute, non-negotiable nature of the true gospel.
2. The Divine Origin of Paul's Gospel (Verses 11-17):
• Paul reveals that the gospel he preaches is not a human invention ("not man's gospel"). He did not receive it from any human source, nor was he taught it.
• Instead, it came through a direct revelation of Jesus Christ. He points to his own dramatic conversion (cf. Acts 9) as proof. The one who violently persecuted the church was chosen by God's grace to proclaim Christ to the Gentiles.
• This section underscores that his message is divine, not human, and therefore cannot be compromised by human additions like the Mosaic Law.
3. Paul's Independence from the Jerusalem Apostles (Verses 18-24):
• To counter claims that he was a second-hand apostle who received his doctrine from the original Twelve, Paul details his early post-conversion history.
• He did not immediately consult with the apostles in Jerusalem. After three years, he visited only Peter and James, staying for just fifteen days.
• He emphasizes his unknown status to the churches in Judea, who only heard reports: "He who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy." This testimony highlights the power of God's transformation and reinforces that his mission and message were independent and directly God-given.

Key Theme of Chapter 1: The gospel is of divine origin, is absolute and unchanging, and Paul's authority to proclaim it comes directly from God, not from the approval of other men.

15-Question Bible Study on Galatians Chapter 1 (ESV)

Question 1: In verses 1-5, how does Paul describe his apostleship and its source? Why do you think he starts his letter this way, given the situation in Galatia?

• Cross-Reference: Romans 1:1 - "Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God..."

Question 2: In verse 4 Paul refers to the “present evil age”. Is this a reference to something specific in his time or a more general statement referring to this fallen world? Does this phrase align with Jesus’ use of “this wicked generation” (Matt. 11:16; 12:39, 41-42, 23:36).

·       Cross-Reference: Ephesians 5:15-16 – “15 Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, 16 making the best use of the time, because the days are evil.”

Question 3: Paul expresses "astonishment" in verse 6. What is he astonished about, and what does this reveal about the spiritual state of the Galatians?

• Cross-Reference: 2 Corinthians 11:3 - "But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ."

Question 4: Verses 6-7 speak of a "different gospel." According to Paul, what is the true nature of this "different gospel"?

• Cross-Reference: 2 Corinthians 11:4 - "For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough."

Question 5: Paul pronounces a serious warning (anathema) in verses 8-9. What does this tell us about the importance of doctrinal truth and the danger of distorting the gospel?

• Cross-Reference: 1 John 4:1 - "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world."

Question 6: In verse 10, Paul poses a rhetorical question about seeking the approval of man or God. How does this verse challenge our motivations in Christian life and ministry?

• Cross-Reference: 1 Thessalonians 2:4 - "...but just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not to please man, but to please God who tests our hearts."

Question 7: What crucial point does Paul make about the origin of his gospel in verse 11-12?

• Cross-Reference: Ephesians 3:2-3 - "...assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God's grace that was given to me for you, how the mystery was made known to me by revelation..."

Question 8: Paul describes his former life in Judaism in verses 13-14. How does this background make his conversion and calling all the more powerful? If Paul rejected Judaism to become a Christian, how could Christianity come from Judaism? What is Judaism, is it the faith of the Old Testament?

• Cross-Reference: Philippians 3:5-6 - "...circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless."

Question 9: According to verses 15-16a, who was responsible for Paul's calling and revelation? What was the specific purpose of this calling?

• Cross-Reference: Acts 9:15 - "But the Lord said to him, 'Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel.'"

Question 10: After his conversion, what was Paul's immediate response in verse 16b? What can we learn from this about relying on human counsel versus divine guidance? Why do you think Paul did not consult with anyone?

• Cross-Reference: Jeremiah 17:5 - "Thus says the LORD: 'Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his strength, whose heart turns away from the LORD.'"

Question 11: Paul's first trip to Jerusalem after his conversion was brief (v. 18-19). Who did he see, and how long did he stay? Why might he be emphasizing these specific details?

• Cross-Reference: Acts 9:26-28 - It describes his initial introduction to the apostles through Barnabas, aligning with his point that his contact was limited.

Question 12: What solemn oath does Paul make in verse 20? Why is this significant for his argument?

• Cross-Reference: Romans 9:1 - "I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit..."

Question 13: Where did Paul go after leaving Jerusalem, and what was the result of his ministry there (v. 21-24)?

• Cross-Reference: Acts 9:30 - "And when the brothers learned this, they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus."

Question 14: How did the churches in Judea view Paul, whom they had never met (v. 22-24)? What was the basis of their praise to God?

• Cross-Reference: Matthew 5:16 - "In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven."

Question 15: Looking back over the entire chapter, what is the primary evidence Paul uses to prove that his gospel is the true one?

• Cross-Reference: 2 Timothy 3:16 - "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness..."

Question 16: In your own life, what are some modern "different gospels" or additions to the gospel that can tempt believers away from the simplicity of faith in Christ alone?

• Cross-Reference: Colossians 2:8 - "See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ."

May this analysis and study guide lead you into a deeper understanding and appreciation of the glorious, all-sufficient gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

How The Mighty Fall Have Fallen

 

It appears that there is a strong likelihood that Dan Andrews has suffered from the negative effects of the experimental jabs that he did everything he could to coerce people into taking. Was there a man in Australia that did more to coerce people to take these foolish injections? i don't think so, though there was a tough competition among our national leaders for who was pushing the hardest. 

Dan Andrews had some of the worst authoritarian responses to the crazy Covid times, and Melbourne had some of the longest lockdowns in the world. Some people were locked in apartment blocks with no warning with little ability to prepare, and with no recourse to get out. This was done in a way that looked more like something out of a Communist country than freedom loving Australia. And that was just a fraction of what he did. None of Australia’s leaders performed well in this time, but he was certainly among the worst. And his proud declarations were regularly on our T.V. and other screens during that time. He was at the peak of his powers.

But now how the mighty have fallen.

There is a powerful chapter in The Canterbury Tales called The Monk’s Tale that everyone should read. This chapter is about the rise and fall of many mighty rulers and prominent people in history. Many of the names you will recognize, some are not as famous. But almost all of them have the same trajectory: rise to power, pride and then humiliation. Though some just rose to power and then were brought down.

Here is a short excerpt from the book:

“HERCULES 

Of Hercules, the sovereign conquering power, Sing his deeds' praise and sing his high renown; For in his time of strength he was the flower. He slew, and made a lion's skin his own; Of centaurs laid he all the boastings down; He killed the cruel Harpies, those birds fell; Brought golden apples from the dragon thrown; And he stole Cerberus, the hound of Hell. He slew the cruel tyrant Busiris And made his horses eat him, flesh and bone; To a fiery, venomous worm he wrote finis; Achelous had two horns, but he broke one; Cacus he slew within his cave of stone; He slew the giant Anthaeus the strong; He killed the Erymanthian boar anon; And bore the heavens upon his shoulders long. Was never man, since this old world began, That slew so many monsters as did he. Throughout all earth's wide realms his honour ran, What of his strength and his high chivalry, And every kingdom went he out to see. He was so strong no man could hinder him; At both ends of the world, as says Trophy, In lieu of limits he set pillars grim. A darling had this noble champion, Deianira, sweet as is the May; And as these ancient writers say, each one, She sent to him a new shirt, fresh and gay. Alas that shirt, alas and welaway! Envenomed was so cunningly withal That, ere he'd worn the thing but half a day, It made the flesh from off his bones to fall. Yet are there writers who do her excuse Because of Nessus, who the shirt had made; Howe'er it be, I will not her accuse; But all his naked back this poison flayed Until the flesh turned black, and torn, and frayed. And when he saw no other remedy, Upon a pyre of hot brands he was laid, For of no poison would he deign to die. Thus died this mighty worthy, Hercules. Lo, who may trust to Fortune any throw? And he who seeks on earth for fame and case Ere he's aware, he's often brought down low. Right wise is he that can his own heart know. Beware, when Fortune may her smile disclose, She lies in wait her man to overthrow, And in such wise as he would least suppose...

...PEDRO, KING OF SPAIN

O noble Pedro, glory once of Spain, Whom Fortune held so high in majesty, Well ought men read thy piteous death with pain! Out of thy land thy brother made thee flee; And later, at a siege, by scheme crafty, Thou wert betrayed, and led into his tent, Where he then, and with his own hand, slew thee, Succeeding to thy realm and government. The field of snow, with eagle black therein, Caught by the lime−rod, coloured as the gleed, He brewed this wickedness and all this sin. The "Wicked Nest" was worker of this deed; Not that Charles Oliver who aye took heed Of truth and honour, but the Armorican Ganelon Oliver, corrupt for mead, Brought low this worthy king by such a plan.

PETER, KING OF CYPRUS

O noble Peter, Cyprus' lord and king, Which Alexander won by mastery, To many a heathen ruin did'st thou bring; For this thy lords had so much jealousy, That, for no crime save thy high chivalry, All in thy bed they slew thee on a morrow. And thus does Fortune's wheel turn treacherously And out of happiness bring men to sorrow.

BERNABO OF LOMBARDY

Of Milan, great Bernabo Visconti, God of delight and scourge of Lombardy, Why should I tell not of thy misery, Since in all power thou did'st climb so high? Thy brother's son, and doubly thine ally, For he thy nephew was and son−in−law, Within his prison shut thee up to die, But I know not how death to thee did draw." [1]

There are many who will want to gloat over Dan Andrew’s plight. But not me.

My approach is rather different. 

We should reflect on his situation, and also on this chapter in The Canterbury Tales, and remind ourselves that we must steward the power and responsibilities given to us by God to the best of his glory and our abilities, because there is a day when we will be brought low. Whether we are able to step down from that position of power with dignity or whether we will end up utterly humiliated, is in large degree based on how we stewarded that power.

Dan Andrew’s arrogance was famous in this country at the time. Many saw him as heady on the power he was exercising. Victoria, the state his power dominated, has not recovered from his policies. Many Victorians fled, many of us Australians know people who did, and his policies were a direct reason stated by many that they left. And I suspect many who do not state it still made their decision in light of them.

But no man in this world, no matter how dominant, holds onto power forever. Many are brought low in incredibly visible ways. And that is what Chaucer is reflecting on in The Monks Tale. It is not wrong to wield power, to some degree you will be given power in this world, whether it is in the home and over your own family, or children, or at work, or in some other way. What matters is how we wield it. What matters is how we steward it for the good of others, and not our own profit. 

The last will be first and the first will be last. The wisest man who ever lived told us this, and Jesus Christ was never wrong.

List of References

---

[1] Chaucer, Geoffrey .. The Canterbury Tales: FREE Hamlet By William Shakespeare (JKL Classics - Active TOC, Active Footnotes ,Illustrated) (pp. 210-211, 216-219). JKL Classics. Kindle Edition.

Single Mothers and Sons

 

This boy is a hero. He deserves a medal. I hope someone starts a go fund me so that he can live in luxury for the rest of his life, or at least so that he can get a really good headstart as a reward for his actions. An incredible young man:

“A 13-year-old boy has been hailed as a hero after swimming 4 kilometres through rough waters for help after his mother and two siblings were swept out to sea off Western Australia's South West.

The family were holidaying at Quindalup, 250 kilometres south of Perth, when their inflatable paddleboards and kayak were pushed offshore by strong winds on Friday evening.

The 13-year-old tried to paddle back to shore on his kayak before it took on water in rough seas.

He then swam for four more hours to shore and successfully raised the alarm.

Naturaliste Marine Rescue commander Paul Bresland said the 47-year-old mother, her 12-year-old son and eight-year-old daughter were eventually found at 8:30pm, clinging to a paddleboard after drifting about 14km offshore.”[1]

This a remarkable account of human perseverance and physical determination.

Yet there is another story within this story, one that many are not touching: the impossible burdens single mothers often put on their sons. Now, I do not know if the mother is single or if the father/husband just was not there, still this story is illustrative. You see, either way, this is a common trait of single mother behaviour. When there is no man in the house to lead, provide and take the protective role, all that burden is often put on the eldest son or the sons.

This is one of the reasons that sons of single mothers grow up with serious anger issues. This is one of the reasons that sons of single mothers are over-represented in jail. In this situation the massive burden this woman put on her son paid off. Much of the time, though, that is not what happens. Very often such sons are weighed down by the burdens their mothers put on them. This has been observed again and again.

Society, in general, is loath to criticize single mothers. As I said, I don't know if she is single or the husband/father was just not there. But this serves as a powerful illustration of what many single mothers do when the husband/father is not there. And this is a cause of many of our ills in society. 

Our society is going to continue to decline if we keep enacting policies that make single mothers the norm, rather than a rare exception.

List of References

---

[1] Jon Daly, Stan Shaw and Madigan Landry, 2026, https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/boy-13-makes-superhuman-swim-to-save-family-swept-out-to-sea-in-geographe-bay/ar-AA1Vt1kq?ocid=BingNewsSerp

Don’t Tell Me The Gospel Did Not Change The World

In the ancient Roman world, the cross was not a symbol of hope. It was not worn as jewellery or placed atop buildings as a sign of reverence. It was an instrument of terror, a public display of Rome’s brutal power. In most provincial cities, crosses lined the roads, the marketplaces, even the entrances to shops. Crucified bodies were part of the everyday landscape—a grim reminder of what happened to those who defied the empire. It was meant to humiliate, to intimidate, and to crush the spirit of the oppressed.

Imagine going to the mall and seeing that there is a crowd at the front entrance because someone has been crucified over the entrance. And in the food market there are people crucified on both sides. And outside the shoe shop, where you wanted to get new shoes, you saw someone is crucified as well. This is what it was like in ancient Rome. This visible and horrific reminder of Rome’s dominance and power was everywhere for people to see. It was a bit different in Jerusalem because they had special dispensation to crucify people outside the city in accordance with their laws, but still you would have seen this as a common site even there, just outside town. 

Yet, in the fullness of time, God entered that world. Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God, took the cross upon Himself. He was crucified outside Jerusalem, in accordance with Jewish law, but in harmony with the Father’s eternal plan. And in that act, He did more than suffer—He transformed the very symbol of His suffering. When you understand what the cross once was, it is incredible that today we look at it as a symbol of true salvation and hope.

What was once a sign of cruelty and domination has become, for us, a sign of love, redemption, and victory. The cross today is a reminder not of Rome’s power, but of Christ’s sacrifice and his ability to over this world not by might but by the power of the Holy Spirit. The cross now speaks not of humiliation, but of exaltation. Don’t ever tell me the gospel has not changed this world. It changed the way we see the cross. It changed history itself. It changed how we even see the condemned, those who we know are guilty. Because an innocent man, who was also God, took the place of all who would believe in him.

But the story does not end at the cross. It rises from the empty tomb and ascends to the throne. And for this, we turn to the Scripture most quoted in the New Testament: Psalm 110.

“The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at My right hand,
Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”
(Psalm 110:1, NKJV)

Stop and think about what David writes here for a second. He says, “The Lord said to my Lord…” Who was King David’s Lord, as no man stood higher than him in all Israel? His Lord was The Lord, God. So who was his Lord’s lord? This can only be a reference to the Father and the Son. For David was no idolator. Here, David is prophesying that God would rule this world through his Son.  

The apostles returned to this Psalm again and again because in it they saw the blueprint of Christ’s victory, that he would rule the world. Jesus is not merely a martyr; He is the Messiah, seated at the right hand of the Father, reigning until every enemy is put under His feet. Every dominion, every power, every system of oppression—spiritual, political, or social—will be defeated by Him. He is the King who fights for His people.

“2 The Lord shall send the rod of Your strength out of Zion.
Rule in the midst of Your enemies!”
(Psalm 110:2, NKJV)

He rules not from a distance, but in the midst of the battle. He entered our world of crosses and cruelty, and He reigns from right there—from the place of suffering, from the heart of human brokenness. And He shall vindicate His people. He shall judge on their behalf. He shall set things right. And we see his impact in this world clearly, already. Because the idea of setting up a cross is now unconscionable. At least in the vast majority of the world. In some dark places it still occurs, but the Lord’s conquest through his word, by the power of his Spirit continues.

But Psalm 110 tells us something even more profound about Jesus:

“4 The Lord has sworn
And will not relent,
“You are a priest forever
According to the order of Melchizedek.”
(Psalm 110:4, NKJV)

Jesus is both King and Priest. He does not only defeat our enemies; He represents us before God. He stands in our place, offering not the blood of animals, but His own blood, once for all. He is our Mediator, our Advocate, our Eternal High Priest. He represents us to God, and he represents God to us.

This is why we trust in him. This is why we take communion, because we know he is victorious and he is advocating on our behalf. We proclaim His death until He comes. We remember the cross, but we also celebrate the throne. We eat the bread and drink the cup in the confidence that the One who was crucified is now crowned—and He is reigning for us.

When Jesus went to the cross, He took the worst the world could do, the humiliation, the violence, the oppression, and He turned it into the instrument of our salvation. The very tool of Rome’s terror became the means of our peace. The cross, once a symbol of death, is now our tree of life.

He is not dead. He is risen. He is seated. He is reigning.

And because He reigns, everything changes. The world that once crucified its Creator now wears His sign as a symbol of hope. The systems that once ruled by fear are destined to fall under His feet. The people who once walked in shame now walk in His victory.

This is the power of the gospel.
This is the rule of our Priest-King.
This is the hope we celebrate.

“5 The Lord is at your right hand;
    he will shatter kings on the day of his wrath.
6 He will execute judgment among the nations,
    filling them with corpses;
he will shatter chiefs
    over the wide earth.
7 He will drink from the brook by the way;
    therefore he will lift up his head.” 

(Psalm 110:5-7, NKJV)

We have recently seen more of the crimes of Epstein and his network be revealed. We know in many ways how much evil and cruelty dominate in this world. The people of Judea in Jesus’ day were waiting for their Alexander the Great, their Julius Caesar. But their conqueror a different came a different way. Jesus came and defeated sin, death and the devil in a way most of them did not expect. But you better believe he is working on the destruction of evil in this world. He is transforming it, and subjugating all powers to himself, and he will judge the evil of this world. 

The only question is will you be judged by his final decree on judgement day? Or will you be judged and accounted in him by virtue of his work on the cross?

 

The Mathematics Against Darwin Intensifies

 

Last week I published my review of Probability Zero: The Mathematical Impossibility Of Evolution by Natural Selection by Vox Day. Since then he has already published a sequel called the Frozen Gene. Vox Day’s books are currently best sellers in the Science section of Amazon and deservedly so. The first one, and what I have read of the second one, very powerfully demonstrate that the proposed mechanisms of naturalistic evolution simply do not work. They do not have the horsepower. None of the modified versions of the theory do either. The math is simply not in their favour.

Vox Day has done the math, checked it with advanced AI’s and leading physicists and other scientists, and put the conclusive nails in the evolutionary theory coffin. His books are causing a bit of storm right now, because they are challenging the current scientific narrative about the scientific explanations of bio-diversity in our world. But as Vox Day notes in his book, he is not the first person to observe the mathematical impossibility of evolution. He has in fact independently come across the mathematical challenges to evolution that other scientists and mathematicians have discovered over the years. Many people who examine the data, and know what they are looking at, find that evolutionary theory crumbles to dust under closer examination.

A good example of another mathematical case against evolution is this one here, from Replacing Darwin, a 2017 book by Nathaniel T Jeanson. Replacing Darwin comes at this from a very different perspective than Vox Days, but it is another thread of evidence showing that the mathematics do not support the theory of evolution. It is also a good bit of evidence to show that among the creationist researchers fellowship there are genuine scientists doing the kind of research that really helps put the naturalistic worldview to the test.

Answers In Genesis and other such creationist ministries are often overlooked by many Christians and seen as anti-intellectual. But they have some seriously good scientists and researchers in their ranks, and they are working hard and fighting an uphill battle. I think in the long run many of their claims will be vindicated. In Probability Zero Vox was clear that he was not seeking to make a classical creationist argument. He is simply seeking to demonstrate that the naturalistic explanation for biodiversity does not work. He also proposes an alternative, Intelligent Genetic Manipulation.

Jeason, however, is clear that he is coming from a creationist perspective. What he is able to demonstrate with genetics and mathematics, is that the young earth creationist perspective is not as unscientific as many people have said it is. In fact, it makes proper predictions that can actually be tested and quantified.

I have here an extended discussion from his book, which I read many years ago. I went back over this section of the book a few days ago, to evaluate it in light of Day’s observations and calculations. You will see his argument is different to Day’s though it does overlap in some ways.

I’ll let Jeason outline his argument for you, himself, here:

“Examination of current evolutionary literature reveals that the assumption of constant rates of change is largely followed. When discussing molecular clocks, evolutionists typically measure the DNA difference between two species, assign the time of origin from the evolutionary geologic timescale, and then calculate a rate of mtDNA mutation from these parameters. Implicitly, this methodology assumes constant rates of mtDNA mutation.

However, very few evolutionary clock analyses invoke the measured rates of mtDNA change. By analogy, the typical evolutionary molecular clock methods parallel the following (theoretical) geologic practice: Let’s say a geologist wants to know the rate of erosion in the Grand Canyon.

Rather than measure it directly, the geologist first determines the ages of the layers in the Grand Canyon. Then the geologist determines the depth of the Grand Canyon. By dividing the depth by the ages, the geologist calculates how fast (or slow) the Colorado River has been eroding the gorge. Obviously, this “rate” is simply a prediction, not an actual measurement. In practice, geologists determine the rate of erosion by directly measuring it in real time. This measurement directly tests the prediction we just made.

Similarly, the rates of mutation in typical evolutionary molecular clock discussions represent a prediction, not an actual measurement. This prediction can be tested with the human pedigree-derived rate that we just discussed.

Using these experimentally derived rates, we can make predictions on the origin of humans. For example, by taking the evolutionary time of origin for humans or for other species from the fossil record and by multiplying the time by the mutation rate, we can predict how many mtDNA differences should be present today. For comparisons between individuals in the same species, this math and methodology is the same as that which the evolutionists have been using for years. In technical terms, the equation is a coalescence calculation.

When we’re comparing mtDNA differences between two separate species, we multiply our calculation by 2 — to account for the fact that mtDNA differences have been accumulating independently in both species. In technical terms, this second equation is a divergence calculation. With respect to humans, evolutionists have proposed that chimpanzees are our closest living relatives. They have put the time of divergence between the human and chimpanzee lineages around 4.5 to 17 million years ago. Using this timescale, along with the measured human mtDNA mutation rate, we can predict how many mtDNA differences should exist between humans and chimpanzees today.

Before we can perform this calculation, the mutation rate that I reported earlier must be converted to an absolute timescale. To convert units of mutations per generation to units of mutations per year, we need to know the ages at which humans and chimpanzees give birth.

In technical terms, the length of time from conception to reproductive maturity is referred to as the generation time. Specifically, since mtDNA is inherited primarily — if not exclusively — through the maternal lineage, we need to know the generation times for female humans and female chimpanzees. For chimpanzee females, the average generation time is around 25 years. In humans, the generation time varies. Some women give birth early in life; others, late in life. Since we’re calculating mutations over many generations, the safest approach is to predict mutations over a whole range of generation times — from 15 years to 50 years. In practical terms, this means that humans mutate one mtDNA base pair every 76 to 419 years.

Using this rate, we can predict how many mtDNA differences should exist between humans and chimpanzees after 4.5 to 17 million years of mutation. Though the chimpanzee mtDNA mutation rate has not yet been empirically measured, we will assume that it is the same as the human mutation rate.* Since we’re comparing the DNA of two species to one another, a divergence calculation is most appropriate. At a mutation rate of one base pair per 76 to 419 years, a minimum of 21,480 mtDNA differences (1 mutation per 419 years * 4.5 million years * 2 = 21,480) and a maximum of 447,368 mtDNA differences (1 mutation per 76 years * 17 million years * 2 = 447,368) would arise. Today, only 1,483 mtDNA differences separate these two species. (See also Figure 7.3, which uses more precise calculations, based on previously published work.) The evolutionary timescale predicts mtDNA differences far in excess of what is observed.

These results also raise an important question. In humans, the total length of mtDNA sequence is less than 17,000 base pairs. How could over 447,000 mtDNA differences arise between humans and chimpanzees?

In practical terms, the 447,000 result is the number of predicted mutations. Since the total mtDNA genome size is far less than 447,000 base pairs, each mtDNA position would have been mutated multiple times over. In other words, the mtDNA genome would have been mutationally saturated. Today, a comparison of human and chimpanzee mtDNA reveals two genomes that are far from mutational saturation — the 1,483 differences represent just 9% of the total human mtDNA genome length.

These evolutionary predictions improve little if we narrow our focus to living and extinct members of the genus Homo. For example, Neanderthals are classified within the Homo genus, and a Neanderthal mtDNA sequence has been published. Evolutionists put the split between the Neanderthal and modern human lineages about 400,000 to 700,000 years ago. Treating them as members of the same species, we can use a coalescence calculation to predict how many mtDNA differences should exist today between Neanderthal sequences and sequences from living humans. At a mutation rate of one base pair per 76 to 419 years, a minimum of 955 mtDNA differences (1 mutation per 419 years * 400,000 years = 955) and a maximum of 9,211 mtDNA differences (1 mutation per 76 years * 700,000 = 9,211) would arise. Today, only 213 mtDNA differences separate Neanderthals and modern humans. (See also Figure 7.4, which uses more precise calculations based on previously published work.51) Again, the evolutionary timescale predicts mtDNA differences far in excess of what is observed. The discrepancy between predictions and reality is less than what we observed for the human-chimpanzee calculations. But it still fails to capture actual differences.

When we focus just on differences among modern humans, the discrepancy becomes even smaller — but still fails to result in a successful prediction. As mentioned above, evolutionists put the origin of Homo sapiens in Africa about 200,000 years ago. Since we’re examining differences within a single species, a coalescence calculation applies. At a mutation rate of one base pair per 76 to 419 years, a minimum of 477 mtDNA differences (1 mutation per 419 years * 200,000 years = 477) and a maximum of 2,632 mtDNA differences (1 mutation per 76 years * 200,000 = 2,632) would arise. Today, an average of 77 mtDNA differences separate African mtDNA sequences from other mtDNA sequences. An average of 39 mtDNA differences separate non-African sequences from other mtDNA sequences52 (see also Figure 7.5). The evolutionary timescale still fails to accurately predict reality.

If these predictions are unable to account for mtDNA differences that we see today, what model can accurately predict them? If we expand our analysis further back into evolutionary time and include more primate species, then the number of differences in the “Actual” column would increase. However, the longer timescale would necessarily lead to a higher number of predicted differences. Since the mutation predictions for the human-chimpanzee timescale already exceed the mtDNA genome size, this lengthening of the timescale would only make the predictions even more at odds with reality.

On the other side of the timescale spectrum, we might be able to make accurate predictions for a very narrow group of modern humans. Perhaps the recent origin of one of the European ethnolinguistic groups will be explicable by the mutation rates we’ve discussed. But if this is all that the evolutionary timescale can explain, what do we do with the rest of the timescale for human evolution?

Can the timescale itself be changed? In theory, perhaps this is possible. However, in practice, this would require significant reinterpretation of the conventional evolutionary geologic model — an action which could produce significant disarray in this discipline.

In a similar vein, perhaps the assumption of constant rates of change could be altered. However, as we observed above, evolutionists have insisted for years that changing rates must not be invoked to explain the majority of phenomena observed in geology and astronomy. Instead, they have claimed that present rates are the key to the past, and that the world we see today has arisen primarily by slow, constant rates over time. Invoking changing rates in genetics would be logically inconsistent with the practice of evolutionary geology and astronomy.

Perhaps the explanation involves natural selection. At first pass, this might seem plausible. After all, mtDNA encodes proteins with critical functions in the cell. If you interrupt basic metabolism, cellular death is sure to result. Surely most of the thousands of mtDNA mutations that have occurred over the last several million years of evolutionary time were lethal to the possessors of these mutations. Consequently, natural selection would surely have eliminated these mutations (and individuals) from the mtDNA pool.

How might we evaluate the natural selection hypothesis? The scientific community has a long-established practice of dealing with scientific controversies. We’ve already discussed in chapter 4 how to advance a scientific debate towards resolution. The scientific method operates like a process of elimination. When two hypotheses offer competing explanations for the same phenomenon, one must be eliminated before scientific inferences can be made.

Naturally, this logic assumes that two competing hypotheses actually make testable predictions. We assumed as much in our discussion of the history of genetics (chapter 2–3) and in our discussion of Darwin’s arguments from biogeography. For example, Mendel was successful as a scientist because he inferred rules that made testable, accurate predictions about the mathematical ratios of traits among offspring in each pea plant generation. As another example, in our discussion of whether DNA or proteins were the substance of heredity, we observed that both of these hypotheses made testable predictions. If proteins were the substance of heredity, their chemical elimination in the experiments of Avery and colleagues should have eliminated the transforming ability of the heat-killed smooth cells. The same prediction follows from the hypothesis that DNA is substance of heredity. Conversely, if species were created in their present locations, then you might expect the fauna on islands to possess more terrestrial species. You wouldn’t expect the native fauna to be so skewed towards aquatic and aerial species. In other words, the hypothesis of the fixity of species’ geography makes testable predictions.

Hypotheses that fail to make predictions do not qualify as science. As evolutionists maintain to this day:

Science is . . . a process of acquiring an understanding of natural phenomena. This process consists largely of posing hypotheses and testing them with observational or experimental evidence. . . . Scientific research requires that we have some way of testing hypotheses based on experimental observational data. The most important feature of scientific hypotheses is that they are testable [emphasis his].

The importance of this fact to the evolutionary community is manifest in the way in which it has been applied to creationist ideas:

Science differs in this way [see quote above] from creationism, which does not use evidence to test its claims, does not allow evidence to shake its a priori commitment to certain beliefs, and does not grow in its capacity to explain the natural world. Unshakeable belief despite reason or evidence (i.e., faith) may be considered a virtue in a religious framework, but is precisely antithetical to the practice of science.

In other words, since the most important feature of a scientific hypothesis is that it is testable, the seeming un-testability of the existence of God, of the supernatural creation of various creatures, and of a global flood a few thousand years ago has typically removed creationist ideas from the realm of science.

Some evolutionists have even taken the criticism of the creation model one step further. They have summed up creationist views in a short phrase: “God did it.” Besides rejecting this phrase as unscientific, they have denounced it as anti-scientific. For example, let’s say that you were testing a potential anti-cancer drug in the lab. If you were laboring over a confounding experimental result, “God did it” wouldn’t seem to reveal an answer. At least, it wouldn’t lead to discoveries on how the natural world operated. Rather, testable hypotheses would be the only scientific way forward toward a solution.

In light of this historical practice, we can revisit the evolutionary explanation of natural selection. The elimination of thousands of mtDNA mutations by natural selection might seem plausible. But to be scientific, this explanation would have to make testable predictions. For example, the mtDNA mutation rate in the most divergent African people groups (San peoples, Biaka peoples, etc.) has not yet been measured. Can the evolutionary explanation of natural selection predict what this rate will be? In other words, before the rate is actually measured, will evolutionists publish a guess as to what it will be? If not, is the evolutionary explanation scientific?

* * * *

Curiously, the human mtDNA data that we’ve just discussed fits a model that many have previously discounted. In a previous section, I discussed the YEC geologists and astronomers who hold to a 6,000-year timescale for the earth and universe. Predicting mtDNA differences for Homo individuals over 6,000 years exactly captures both the average mtDNA differences among non-Africans and among Africans (Figure 7.6).

The non-African differences were best predicted by a moderate generation time (i.e., about 30 years), and the African differences by a fast generation time (i.e., about 15 years) (Figure 7.6). Historical data offered an explanation as to why. Since mtDNA is inherited primarily — if not exclusively — through the maternal lineage, data on female generation times are the most relevant to our analyses. United Nations marriage data from the 1970s revealed that women from African nations married younger than women from non-African nations (Table 7.2). My mtDNA predictions suggest that this discrepancy was also true in the centuries preceding the 1900s.

Alternatively, these marriage data might simply be an artifact, and not a reflection of historical practices among African people groups. Conversely, some African lineages might mutate their mtDNA at a faster rate than non-African lineages. Measurement of a form of genetic change (recombination — see chapter 9) in a different DNA compartment (the nucleus — see chapter 8) suggests that Africans have faster rates of genetic change than non-Africans.57 This might also be true in the mtDNA compartment.

As mentioned above, no direct measurement of the mtDNA mutation rate has been performed in the most divergent African people groups. I expect that the rate in these groups will be on the order of 1 mutation per 5 to 8 generations — or faster. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if these divergent African lineages mutate twice as fast as the non-African lineages — 1 mutation per 2.5 to 4 generations.

In other words, the 6,000-year timescale makes testable predictions about the rate of mtDNA mutation.[1]

Vox Day’s calculations demonstrate that the theory of evolution by natural selection does not have enough time or capability to be able to achieve what is necessary to explain biodiversity. The mechanisms proposed simply do not have the required horsepower, and this is just a fact. Jeanson’s calculations show that the evolutionary worldview predicts far more changes in mtDNA than are actually observed. In other words, the naturalistic time scales are wrong, and this is demonstrated by cross referencing changes in many different species.

Mathematics is squeezing the life out of evolution. It makes me wish that I had studied more mathematics in my earlier days. However, the equations being discussed here are relatively simple. Creationists have always argued that genetics was going to end evolutionary theory. Day has demonstrated that someone or something or somethings have manipulated human and other DNA on earth. As I said in my last review, evolution is dead, but its corpse will hang around for a while. But it is really starting to stink guys. Evolution was always pseudo-science. I recognized that when I started reading different evolutionists years ago and observed how much of their books were based on their imagination, rather than hard data. It was only a matter of time before enough data put an end to the credibility of evolution by natural selection.

 

List of References

---

[1] Jeanson Ph.D., Nathaniel T. Replacing Darwin: The New Origin of Species (p. 293-307). Master Books. Kindle Edition.