Christmas Myths SERIES: 5: The Bible Forbids the Use of Christmas Trees

"We have often been told that Christmas is a pagan holiday because the Bible forbids the use of Christmas trees. If you have never heard this one before, it might sound rather silly, but those who espouse it seem to have strong feelings about it. The claim is based on Jeremiah 10, where God spoke the following words through the prophet:

Hear the word that the Lord speaks to you, O house of Israel. Thus says the Lord:

“Learn not the way of the nations, nor be dismayed at the signs of the heavens because the nations are dismayed at them, for the customs of the peoples are vanity. A tree from the forest is cut down and worked with an axe by the hands of a craftsman. They decorate it with silver and gold; they fasten it with hammer and nails so that it cannot move. Their idols are like scarecrows in a cucumber field, and they cannot speak; they have to be carried, they cannot walk. Do not be afraid of them, for they cannot do evil, neither is it in them to do good.” (Jeremiah 10:1–5)

If you take just a moment to examine the context of this passage, it

becomes painfully obvious that these verses have nothing to do with Christmas trees. The prophet is in the process of warning the Israelites to not make idols like the Gentiles often did. The trees were cut down and made into idols by craftsmen. This just simply is not about Christmas trees.

Of course, Christmas trees can become problematic if one focuses more on the tree than on the real reason for the season. We need to keep Christ first at all times, including Christmas." 

AIG

Creation Moment 12/19/2025 - Are we living in a simulation?

"Are we living in a simulation? 

This question has garnered massive attention in recent years, with technology tycoon Elon Musk and podcaster Joe Rogan speculating along these lines in a YouTube clip that scored over 10 million

views. Another prominent proponent for this idea is Nick Bostrom, a former Oxford professor and leading advocate for transhumanism (the belief that humans should transform their own nature through technology).

Recent research critiques these ideas, known as the “simulation hypothesis,” on mathematical grounds.

The introduction to Reality+ states, “The central thesis of this book is: Virtual reality is genuine reality. Or at least, virtual realities are genuine realities.” One way to argue for this conclusion is to equate

reality with human perception. But Reality+ adopts a different approach, recognizing that the regularities we perceive in the world suggest an external, objective reality must exist beyond human perception. Otherwise, we’d have to say that facets of the universe we haven’t observed don’t exist.

A Biblical approach to epistemology shows the simulation hypothesis to be self-defeating.
Christian philosopher Peter Williams argues that “the first physical event must have had a non-physical, personal cause outside and independent of itself (and this, of course, is a part of what theists mean by ‘God’).” Only a self-existent, atemporal, transcendent God possesses the attributes required for a self-explanatory stopping point.

Reality+ takes issue with the idea that God is self-existent, asking, “What explains the design of that designer, or of the whole system of designers? Someone might say that God is exempt from explanation, but this looks like special pleading.” 

Special pleading is an informal logical fallacy that unfairly fails to treat similar things or individuals alike by asking for an arbitrary exception for one of them. God, however, possesses unique attributes such that he is not similar to anyone or anything else, precluding special pleading. One of these unique attributes is that God, as the only necessary (or noncontingent) being, is self-explanatory by nature. God is the only legitimate stopping point for the infinite regress.

Noteworthily, Reality+ dismisses the idea that morality stems from God’s commands, on account of the Euthyphro dilemma. This dilemma poses a false dichotomy that either (1) God commands moral actions because they happen to be right, or (2) moral actions are right because God happens to command them. 

In the first case, the basis for morality is outside of God; in the second case, morals are arbitrary. 

However, a third alternative easily answers the Euthyphro dilemma:

Moral actions are right because they are grounded in God’s omnibenevolent character. Again, Christian theism readily withstands the proffered objections.

God’s Word assures us that not only does truth exist, but he also has a name: Jesus (Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. John 14:6)." AIG

Christmas Myths SERIES: 4: December 25

"Atheists will claim that Christians borrowed the idea of Jesus being born on December 25 from leading figures in pagan religions. Known as the “Christ myth,” these ideas were invented in the nineteenth century and have no historical support. Some Christians are concerned that Christians might be inadvertently celebrating or worshipping pagan deities instead of Jesus by celebrating Christ’s birth on December 25.

At the outset, it should be stated that Jesus probably was not born on December 25. 

Since the Bible does not tell us the date on which he was born, we essentially have a 1 in 365 chance of it being on December 25. 

Date of Jesus’ Birth:
Some Christians are adamant that Jesus could not have been born on this day for a variety of reasons. Alexander Hislop argued that it was just way too cold in Bethlehem at that time of year.

"How comes it that that festival was connected with the 25th of December? There is not a word in the Scriptures about the precise day of His birth, or the time of the year when He was born. What is

recorded there, implies that at what time soever His birth took place, it could not have been on the 25th of December. At the time that the angel announced His birth to the shepherds of Bethlehem, they were feeding their flocks by night in the open fields. Now, no doubt, the climate of Palestine is not so severe as the climate of this country [Scotland]; but even there, though the heat of the day be considerable, the cold of the night, from December to February, is very piercing, and it was not the custom for the shepherds of Judea to watch their flocks in the open fields later than about the end of October."

It would have been helpful if Hislop left his native Scotland to visit Bethlehem in December. He would have learned that the average low temperature there in December is 47.3 degrees Fahrenheit (8.5 degrees Celsius).

While this is by no means balmy, it is not too cold for shepherds to spend the night in the field with their flocks. In fact, Jacob lived in a cooler region while keeping Laban’s flocks, and he said that he kept watch over them during the frost at night (Genesis 31:40).

A more sophisticated argument has been lodged against the traditional date. 

Since Zacharias (father of John the Baptist) was of the division of Abijah (Luke 1:5), it is assumed that we can determine when he would have served in the temple. From there, it is assumed that Elizabeth conceived immediately after Zacharias came home from Jerusalem. We know that Elizabeth was in her sixth month of pregnancy when Gabriel informed Mary of her virginal conception (Luke 1:36). However, we do not know if Mary conceived immediately after this meeting, and we do not know if her pregnancy lasted precisely 40 weeks. Even more difficult for this view is that we do not know when the order of Abijah served in the temple. They were listed as the eighth order in 1 Chronicles 24:10, but that was prior to the exile when the temple was out of service for approximately 70 years. Upon their return from exile, the order of Abijah is listed as the 11th, 12th, and 17th in the lists given in Nehemiah, and they are not even mentioned in the list found in Ezra 2. As such, there is just far too much speculation in this argument to rule out or pinpoint any date, including December 25.

Finally, some Christians have argued that Jesus was born during the Feast of Tabernacles. Since Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection corresponded to Passover and Firstfruits, respectively, they assume that each of the national feasts described in Leviticus 23 must correspond to major events in Jesus’ life and ministry. 

And since Tabernacles has to do with dwellings and since Jesus is the Word who became flesh and “dwelt among us” (John 1:14), then Tabernacles must be the time of Jesus’ birth. This festival is celebrated in late September or early October. While this is an interesting argument, there is nothing in Scripture that tells us that major events in Jesus’ life and ministry had to occur at the times of these other festivals. And even if he were born at Tabernacles, it would mean that the Word actually became flesh about nine months earlier, which would have been in late December." 

AIG

ARCHAEOLOGY: Post Babel France?

Q: Possibly some of the earliest post-Babel settlers who still remembered building techniques as compared to the other peoples who degenerated into "barbarians" who simply followed receding ice sheets long enough over several generations and forgot those techniques thus becoming foragers living off the land in caves and huts?

Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth. Genesis 11:9

"Archaeologists have uncovered the remains of a gigantic "sunken

city" off the coast of western France.
The discovery, made near the Ile de Sein, points to an advanced coastal civilization which existed more than 5,000 years ago.
The site includes a substantial granite wall resting on the seabed, along with at least twelve smaller constructions sitting below the waves.

Researchers say the findings demonstrate a level of sophistication previously unheard of for this era in France.

The buildings reveal that the ancient French possessed technical skills and social organization far beyond what is commonly believed.
The largest structure stretches 120 meters across a submerged valley.
Divers explored the site between 2022 and 2024, finding stacked granite blocks supported by more than 60 standing monoliths.
Some stone slabs reach nearly two meters in height." 

GBN

Creation Moment 12/18/2025 - Christians: Philo and Origen are not your friends

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Genesis 2:7

"Although Dr. Alexander rejects the idea of an historical Adam and Eve, he believes that the Bible can be rescued by a figurative understanding of the Genesis narrative. He claims that this figurative understanding of Genesis goes back 2,000 years, in both the Jewish and Christian traditions:
"The tradition of interpreting the early chapters of Genesis

figuratively – as a theological essay, not as science – goes back to two great thinkers from Alexandria: the first-century Jewish philosopher Philo, and the third-century church father Origen. In 248 Origen wrote that Genesis references to Adam are “not so much of one particular individual as of the whole human race”. Figurative understandings of the Genesis text have been part of mainstream theology ever since.
The first mention of Adam in the Bible is clearly referring to humankind (Genesis 1:26-27) and the definite article in front of Adam in chapters 2 and 3 – “the man” – suggests a representative man, because in Hebrew the definite article is not used for personal names, with Eve being the representative woman."

Dr. Alexander chose his authorities well: Philo and Origen are about as allegorical as you can possibly get. If you’re looking for Jewish and Christian authorities from antiquity who favor a figurative interpretation of Genesis, then you won’t find any better friends than these two learned men.

Dr. Alexander is certainly right in claiming that both Philo of Alexandria (20 B.C. – 50 A.D.) and Origen (c. 185-254 A.D.) interpreted the book of Genesis quite figuratively. For example, both of them held that the description of Paradise in Genesis 2 was a figurative one.

What’s more, the Jewish philosopher Philo pointedly rejects a literal interpretation of the Biblical account of Eve’s formation in his work, The Second Book of the Treatise on The Allegories of the Sacred Laws, after the Work of the Six Days of Creation:

"VII. (19) “And God cast a deep trance upon Adam, and sent him to sleep; and he took one of his ribs,” and so on. The literal statement conveyed in these words is a fabulous one; for how can any one believe that a woman was made of a rib of a man, or, in short, that any human being was made out of another? And what hindered God, as he had made man out of the earth, from making woman in the same manner? For the Creator was the same, and the material was almost interminable, from which every distinctive quality whatever was made. And why, when there were so many parts of a man, did not God make the woman out of some other part rather than out of one of his ribs? Again, of which rib did he make her? And this question would hold even if we were to say, that he had only spoken of two ribs; but in truth he has not specified their number. Was it then the right rib, or the left rib? (Italics mine – VJT.)"

Likewise, the Christian theologian Origen, in Contra Celsum, Book IV, chapter 38, argues that the words of the Genesis narrative describing the formation of Eve from Adam’s side “are spoken with a figurative meaning.” In Contra Celsum, Book IV, chapter 40, he adds that “in the Hebrew language Adam signifies man; and that in those parts of the narrative which appear to refer to Adam as an individual, Moses is discoursing upon the nature of man in general.”
UncommnDescent

Christmas Myths SERIES: 3: Matthew and Luke

"It is not difficult to find skeptics and critics who claim that the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke are hopelessly contradictory. A superficial reading of Matthew 1–2 and Luke 1–3 might lead one to agree with these critics since these two Gospels include many different details, but different is not the same as contradictory. These two books are actually complementary rather than contradictory.

Matthew opens with a genealogy that traces Jesus’ lineage from Abraham through David’s son Solomon. Then Matthew focuses more on Joseph than Mary in relation to Jesus’ birth. After Jesus’ birth, Matthew includes details about the wise men, the flight to Egypt, and
Herod’s slaughter of the innocent baby boys in Bethlehem.

Luke’s Gospel is quite different. After his prologue, he begins with the events leading up to the birth of John the Baptist. Then he focuses on Mary in relation to Jesus’ birth, which he records in Luke 2:1–7. Then Luke goes on to tell of the angelic announcement to the shepherds, the shepherds seeing the newborn Savior, Jesus’ circumcision, and a visit to the temple where Simeon and Anna meet Joseph, Mary, and Jesus. Finally, in his third chapter, Luke provides a genealogy beginning with Jesus and moving back in time all the way to Adam, but the names between Jesus and David are very different than those in Matthew.

Order of Events

Let’s quickly address the notion that Matthew’s events contradict Luke’s events. 

In the previous section, 

*we noticed that there was a gap of time between Matthew 1 and Matthew 2, which opens with, “Now after Jesus was born . . .” Luke 2:8–38 describes multiple events that fill in that time gap. 

First, the angels appear to the shepherds on the night Jesus was born, and then the shepherds enter Bethlehem and see the newborn Savior (Luke 2:8–20). 

Second, eight days later, Jesus was circumcised (Luke 2:21). 

Third, 40 days after His birth, Joseph and Mary took Jesus to Jerusalem to offer the sacrifice required by the law. It was during this visit to the temple that they met Simeon and Anna (Luke 2:22–38).

Similarly, following Luke 2:38, we need to insert the events from Matthew 2 before proceeding to Luke 2:39. Matthew 2:1–12 tells us about the visit of the magi. 

The next three verses describe Joseph and Mary taking Jesus to Egypt after an angel warned Joseph in a dream about Herod’s evil plot (Matthew 2:13–15). This could not have happened prior to their visit to the temple after Jesus’ 40th day. 

Matthew 2:16–18 describes Herod’s slaughter of the innocent baby boys in Bethlehem. We are told in Matthew 2:19–23 that Joseph, Mary, and Jesus remained in Egypt until Herod’s death. At the end of this passage, the events sync up with Luke 2:39, as both mention the move back to Nazareth.

Perhaps it would help to see these details in a list:

Jesus is born in Bethlehem (Matthew 1:25; Luke 2:1–7).

Angels announce Jesus’ birth to shepherds (Luke 2:8–14).
Shepherds visit Bethlehem and see Jesus (Luke 2:15–20).
Jesus is circumcised on the 8th day (Luke 2:21).
Jesus is taken to the temple where Simeon and Anna see him (Luke 2:22–38).
Magi arrive in Jerusalem, meet with Herod, and then see Jesus in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1–12).
Joseph takes Mary and Jesus to Egypt (Matthew 2:13–15).
Herod slaughters Bethlehem’s baby boys (Matthew 2:16–18).
Joseph, Mary, and Jesus move to Nazareth (Matthew 2:19–23; Luke 2:39)." 

AIG

Creation Moment 12/17/2025 - The lowdown sleazy embezzler

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of His coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 2 Peter 3:3,4

"The word “evolution” or one of its cognates (e.g., “evolutionary”) occur just three times in the article. In one setting, the data presented actually pose a puzzle for evolution, in the sense of common ancestry, but never mind that.

Here is the only context that matters (emphasis added), from the very last paragraph:
"In conclusion, chromosomes are not just passive spectator, but the very fulcrum of the spatiotemporal regulation of cell division. Why evolution selected chromosomes as a platform to integrate different signals is easily explained by the need to concentrate mitotic regulators (and their control) which would otherwise dilute in a vast cytoplasmic ocean."

Many years ago, William Dembski said that one of the most objectionable aspects of modern evolutionary theory was the undeserved, unearned credit it steals from the exquisite, transcendentally elegant work of the Designer. Put more bluntly, evolution is a credit thief, a lowdown sleazy embezzler." 

EN&V

Christmas Myths SERIES: 2: Three Kings Visited Baby Jesus on the Night of His Birth

"One of the most beloved Christmas hymns is titled “We Three Kings.” At least three common errors arise from the singing of this song at Christmas time.

First, the Bible does not identify these men as kings. They were magi, from the Greek μαγοι, a term better translated as wise men.

Originally, the magi belonged to a priestly class, and they would have been known for studying the night sky for signs or omens. Since they were from the east, they were probably from the Parthian empire.

Second, the Bible never tells us that there were three magi. The Greek μαγοι is plural, so we know there were at least two of them. The tradition that there were three magi is almost certainly based on the three gifts that they presented before Jesus: gold, frankincense, and myrrh.

Finally, the wise men definitely did not arrive on the night Jesus was born. The hymn does not specifically make this claim, but since we often sing this song at Christmastime, it has contributed to the belief that the wise men were at the nativity. This is shown in movies like Ben-Hur (1959), The Nativity Story (2006), and Son of God (2014). Many nativity scenes also include the wise men. These are just some of the reasons why many people believe the wise men arrived on the night Jesus was born, but the Bible clearly teaches otherwise.

If a person only read Matthew’s Gospel, then it is not hard to see why they might think the wise men were at the nativity. 

Consider the words from the end of Matthew 1 and beginning of Matthew 2.

When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus. Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, “Where is He who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw His star when it rose and have come to worship Him.” 

(Matthew 1:24–2:2)

If you are not paying close attention, you might think that the events in Matthew 2 follow immediately after Jesus’ birth. However, did you notice that Matthew 2:1 opens with the words, “Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem . . .”? While Matthew does not tell us how much time has passed, we can learn from Luke that there were more than 40 days between Jesus’ birth and the appearance of the wise men in Jerusalem." 

AIG

Paul SIMPLIFIES the Gospel

Giving thanks unto the Father, 

I.

---which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:

---Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, 

---and hath translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son:

---In whom we have redemption through His blood, 

even the forgiveness of sins:

II.

And He is the head of the body, 

the church: 

who is the beginning, 

the firstborn from the dead; 
---And, having made peace through the blood of His cross, 

by Him to reconcile all things unto Himself; 

by Him, I say, 

whether they be things in earth, 

or things in heaven.

SUMMARY:

---And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, 

---yet now hath He reconciled

Colossians 1:12-14,18,20,21

Creation Moment 12/16/2025 - Brain still better than AI

And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after our likeness... Genesis 1:26

"Artificial intelligence can now produce acclaimed essays and support medical diagnoses with impressive precision, yet biological brains still outperform machines in one essential area: flexibility. Humans can absorb new information and adapt to unfamiliar situations with very little effort. People can jump into new software, follow a recipe they have never tried before, or learn the rules of a game they have just discovered, while AI systems often struggle to adjust in real time and to learn effectively “on the fly.”

A new study from Princeton neuroscientists offers insight into why the brain excels at this kind of rapid adjustment. The researchers found that the brain repeatedly draws on the same cognitive “blocks” when performing different types of tasks. By recombining these blocks in new ways, the brain can quickly generate fresh behaviors.

“State-of-the-art AI models can reach human, or even super-human, performance on individual tasks. But they struggle to learn and

perform many different tasks,” said Tim Buschman, Ph.D., senior author of the study and associate director of the Princeton Neuroscience Institute. “We found that the brain is flexible because it can reuse components of cognition in many different tasks. By snapping together these ‘cognitive Legos,’ the brain is able to build new tasks.”

People often learn something new by building on related abilities they already have. Someone who knows how to maintain a bicycle, for example, may find motorcycle repair easier to pick up. Scientists refer to this process of assembling new skills from simpler, existing ones as compositionality.
“If you already know how to bake bread, you can use this ability to bake a cake without relearning how to bake from scratch,” said Sina Tafazoli, Ph.D., a postdoctoral researcher in the Buschman lab at Princeton and lead author of the new study. “You repurpose existing skills — using an oven, measuring ingredients, kneading dough — and combine them with new ones, like whipping batter and making frosting, to create something entirely different.”

Compositionality is considered central to human flexibility.
These cognitive Legos could explain why humans can learn new tasks so rapidly. Instead of generating each behavior from the ground up, the brain reuses existing components and avoids redundant work, something current artificial intelligence systems generally lack." SciTechDaily

The Serpent in Genesis 3 SERIES PAGE

Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, 

‘Did God actually say, 

“You shall not eat of any tree in the garden.

 Genesis 3:1

Who Is the Serpent?

Dig Deeper: The Serpent in Genesis 3 SERIES: Who Is the Serpent?

Should Eve Have Been Surprised to Hear the Serpent Speak?

Genesis 3 SERIES: Should Eve Have Been Surprised to Hear the Serpent Speak?

How Did the Serpent Tempt Eve?

Dig Deeper: The Serpent in Genesis 3 SERIES: How Did the Serpent Tempt Eve?

Was Adam with Eve When She Spoke to the Serpent?

The Serpent in Genesis 3 SERIES: Was Adam with Eve When She Spoke to the Serpent?

Did the Serpent Originally Have Legs?

Dig Deeper: The Serpent in Genesis 3 SERIES: Did the Serpent Originally Have Legs?

What Was the Forbidden Fruit?

Dig Deeper: The Serpent in Genesis 3 SERIES: What Was the Forbidden Fruit?

Christmas Myths SERIES: 1: Joseph and Mary Could Not Find a Room at an Inn

"One of the most enduring and endearing retellings of Christ’s nativity is that He was born in a barn or cave because the inn was full and it was the only place available. 

This idea is based on a misunderstanding of Luke’s Gospel, and it involves some embellishment of the details as well.

And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. And while they were there, the time came for her to give birth. And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn. (Luke 2:4–7)

Unlike the common portrayal of these events, Joseph and Mary did not need to frantically search for a place that night. Luke 2:6 states that while they were in Bethlehem, the time came for her to give birth, so it is rather likely that they had arrived in town well before Mary went into labor.

If that is the case, then why does Luke mention a feeding trough?

While it is difficult to understand this based on the way most English Bibles translate verse 7, the Greek text makes no mention of anything like a hotel or inn, and it certainly does not mention an innkeeper. 

Luke used a term that refers to the guest room or upper room of a house (Greek καταλυμα, kataluma). Many first-century Judean homes had a guest room on the second floor. 

A portion of the lower level could be used to keep animals safe at night, so it would not be uncommon to find a feeding trough in the home’s first level." 

AIG

IN the NEWS - Governor Newsom: Modern Poster Child for Genesis 6:5

And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Genesis 6:5

"A post from the Governor Newsom Press Office account shared a

snippet of Newsom taking part in an interview on The Ezra Klein Show.
During the interview, Newsom said he wants “to see trans kids” and highlighted how there is “no governor that’s done more pro-trans legislation” than he has." 

Breitbart

Creation Moment 12/15/2025 - Assumption-Heavy & too Simplistic

Remember, much of what those of evolutionary cosmology teach and reach is usually based on Assumption-Heavy & Simplistic analysis.

Claiming to be wise, they became fools... Romans 1:22 ESV

"For generations, school posters have sorted the Solar System into tidy boxes: four small rocky planets near the Sun, two huge gas planets farther out, and, at the edge, a pair of “ice giants” – Uranus and Neptune – packed with water, ammonia, and methane.

Using a fresh kind of interior model, researchers from the University of Zurich argue that Uranus and Neptune could be far rockier than those posters suggest. In many valid solutions, the planets are just as compatible with rock-heavy interiors as with the classic ice-rich picture.

“Both Uranus and Neptune could be rock giants or ice giants
depending on the model assumptions,” said Ravit Helled, a professor from the University of Astrophysics and one of the researchers involved. “Current data are currently insufficient to distinguish the two, and we therefore need dedicated missions to Uranus and Neptune that can reveal their true nature.”

Standard diagrams show them with thick mantles of “planetary ices” — mostly water, plus ammonia and methane — sitting above a rocky core, all wrapped in a light atmosphere that contains hydrogen, helium and a bit of methane gas that gives them their blue color.

The catch is that no one has ever actually seen the insides of either planet. Voyager 2 flew past Uranus in 1986 and Neptune in 1989, measuring gravity and magnetic fields during quick flybys, then moved on. There has never been an orbiter to map their interiors in detail. So everything beneath the clouds comes from computer models that try to match a limited set of observations.

“The ice giant classification is oversimplified as Uranus and Neptune are still poorly understood,” said Luca Morf, Ph.D. student at the University of Zurich and lead author of the study. “Models based on physics were too assumption-heavy, while empirical models are too simplistic.” ZME

The Serpent in Genesis 3 SERIES: What Was the Forbidden Fruit?

"In Genesis 3:2–3, Eve repeats God’s command about eating from the tree of knowledge: “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’”

In church tradition, the fruit has often been identified as an apple

probably because the Latin word malum, “apple,” sounds like the word malus, “evil.” 

However, Genesis does not tell us what the fruit (pǝrî, Genesis 1:11-12) was. The only fruit mentioned in the passage is the fig (Genesis 3:7).

The fact of the matter is that it is not that important to know what the fruit was. What is important is that by taking of the fruit both Adam and Eve sinned against God. Because of Adam’s disobedience, God drove him out of the garden so that he could not eat from the tree of life and live forever (Genesis 3:22–24)." 

AIG

Health Note - Hospitals are Sounding Alarm about Cannabis use

Beloved,

I wish above all things that thou mayest...be in health...

3 John 1:2 

"Hospitals are seeing a striking rise in people with sudden bouts of intense vomiting linked to long-term cannabis use, a condition now formally classified as cannabis hyperemesis syndrome.

Over the past ten years, emergency departments have treated a growing number of people seeking help for abdominal pain accompanied by severe or persistent vomiting. A shared characteristic among many of these patients is long-term cannabis use.

Clinicians only recently gained a standardized way to document this issue. Last month, a diagnostic code for “cannabis hyperemesis syndrome” became available, describing a gastrointestinal condition that begins within 24 hours of the most recent use and can continue for several days. People who develop the syndrome often face three or four bouts of symptoms each year.

On October 1, the World Health Organization added the new code, R11.16, to its International Classification of Diseases manual (ICD-10, currently). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also incorporated the update for U.S. health care providers.

Even with a proper diagnosis, patients are sometimes reluctant to accept that cannabis is causing their symptoms, said Dr. Chris Buresh, an emergency medicine specialist with UW Medicine and Seattle Children’s.
“Some people say they’ve used cannabis without a problem for decades. Or they smoke pot because they think it treats their nausea,” he said. “It seems like there’s a threshold when people can become vulnerable to this condition, and that threshold is different for everyone. Even using in small amounts can make these people start throwing up.”

Standard anti-nausea medications often do not work well, he said,

leading physicians to try second- or third-line options such as Haldol, which is usually prescribed for psychotic episodes.
Several factors can slow a patient’s recovery. Because the syndrome appears intermittently, some cannabis users may believe a recent episode was unrelated and continue using cannabis without problems until they suddenly become very sick again. 

For those who accept the diagnosis and try to stop using cannabis to improve their symptoms, addiction can make that process challenging, Carlini said." 

SciTechDaily

Creation Moment 12/14/2025 - A Billion-Year Revision: "narrative triangulation"

Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. 

Romans 1:22 NLT

"A team from the University of Bristol argues that gene-duplication events shared by all eukaryotes push the origin of complexity far deeper into Earth history than anyone expected.
Ho-hum. So far, so ordinary.
But then comes a revision of staggering proportions: eukaryotes were apparently evolving complex features for a billion years before mitochondria arrived, all while living in oceans devoid of oxygen.

Evolutionary biologist Philip Donoghue summarizes the surprise:

“One of our most significant findings was that the mitochondria
arose significantly later than expected. The timing coincides with the first substantial rise in atmospheric oxygen… The archaeal ancestor of eukaryotes began evolving complex features roughly a billion years before oxygen became abundant, in oceans that were entirely anoxic.”

The Metabolic Problem:
Readers familiar with basic bioenergetics may pause here. Mitochondria are not decorative extras, they are the ATP engines that make eukaryotic complexity metabolically possible. An archaeal cell attempting to evolve membranes, cytoskeletons, phagocytosis, and all the other high-energy traits of eukaryotes without mitochondria is like a stone-age village attempting to develop skyscrapers before the invention of steel.
The metabolic math simply does not work.

The Narrative Method Revealed:
Q: So what do the researchers do with this contradiction? 

A: They do not open the obvious question – how a metabolically impossible cell could evolve for a billion years – they expand the narrative. The timeline is redrawn, the mitochondria are repositioned, and the new picture is carefully fitted into the broader evolutionary story.

Study coauthor Christopher Kay makes the method explicit:

“It has required the combination of a number of disciplines to do this: palaeontology to inform the timeline, phylogenetics to create faithful and useful trees, and molecular biology to give these gene families a context. It was a big job.”

Indeed, it was.
Each discipline listed already presupposes the evolutionary timeline used to calibrate the others. Fossils inform the molecular clocks, which structure the phylogenetic trees, which reinterpret the fossils. 

The appearance of interdisciplinarity becomes 

a kind of narrative triangulation.

The story confirms … the story:
This is why the metabolic impossibility of billion-year pre-mitochondrial complexity does not register as a conceptual red flag. It becomes a storytelling opportunity. The contradiction is absorbed into a more sweeping arc where complexity, oxygenation, and the rise of mitochondria are harmonized, even if the harmony exists only at the narrative level.

Evolution once again shows itself as a self-correcting story, not a self-correcting science." 

CEH

The Serpent in Genesis 3 SERIES: Did the Serpent Originally Have Legs?

"In Genesis 3:14, God curses the crafty serpent for his role in tempting Eve, “The Lord God said to the serpent, ‘Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.’” 

Q: Does the fact that God says to the serpent “on your belly you

shall go” indicate that the serpent originally walked on legs? 

A: Many believe the curse on the serpent “on your belly you shall go” is symbolic, as the rest of the verse states “and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.” Since serpents do not literally eat dust, the curse is not speaking about a physical change in the serpent but is a way of stressing the humiliation of the serpent (Isaiah 65:25; Micah 7:17). 

Later in Biblical history, a creature that goes on its belly was seen as unclean (Leviticus 11:42). As part of the same curse against the serpent, Genesis 3:15 also uses symbolic language (“he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel”), which the Lord Jesus fulfills when he defeated Satan through his death on the cross (1 John 3:8).

Nevertheless, the words of Genesis 3:14 containing a symbolic meaning does not necessarily mean that the punishment did not alter the serpent physically. As part of God’s judgment, a physical change took place to the ground so that it becomes more difficult to plant (Genesis 3:17), a physical change took place in plants so that they produced thorns (Genesis 3:18), and a physical change took place with Adam as he would return to the dust of the ground and physical death would come into the world (Genesis 3:19; Romans 5:12). Since these physical changes were part of God’s judgment, it is possible that the serpent also went through a physical change: being reduced to crawling on its belly." 

AIG

Creation Moment 12/13/2025 -What do tRNAs tell us?

For in Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible...Colossians 1:16 NIV

"What is it about the simplest living things that needs to be explained? For example, all self-reproducing (‘living’) cells have a set of very complex chemical units called tRNAs (‘transfer RNAs’). There must be at least one unique tRNA for each of the ~20 amino acids that make up proteins.

These tRNAs are essential for the manufacture of all proteins since the cell’s machinery uses them to interpret, from the DNA code, which amino acid is to be used at each position of a protein. 

But these are just a small component of the genetic equipment needed! Dr. Truman researched the biochemical source of tRNAs and noted that their manufacture was coded for on DNA and they must be extracted by special proteins. 

But these proteins could only exist if functional tRNAs were already available to help decode instructions for their manufacture. 

He concluded that tRNAs and proteins could never arise by any natural (evolutionary) process." 

CMI

The Serpent in Genesis 3 SERIES: Was Adam with Eve When She Spoke to the Serpent?

"In Genesis 3:6, Eve invites Adam to join her in disobedience: “So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.” 

Q: Does the fact that Genesis 3:6 states that Adam was “with her”

mean he was a witness to the entire conversation between the serpent and Eve? 

Q: Or does it indicate that Adam had only just arrived on the scene the moment Eve took the fruit?

Those who believe Adam was with Eve during the entire conversation point out that when the serpent speaks to Eve, the plural form of the verb is used: “You shall not eat . . .” (Genesis 3:2), “you will not surely die . . .” (Genesis 3:4), “when you eat of it . . .” (Genesis 3:5).

When God speaks to Adam after the fall, He addresses him alone (Genesis 3:9, 11). Yet Adam blames God for giving him Eve to be “with him,” which may also suggest that when Eve was being tempted by the serpent he was, at least passively, “with her.”." 

AIG

Creation Moment 12/12/2025 - Entanglement

He existed before anything else,

and He holds all creation together.

Colossians 1:17 NLT

"At COSM this week, author Louisa Gilder spoke about her book The Age of Entanglement (2009), about the bizarre quantum mechanics phenomenon where two particles become linked, such that they share the same quantum state. But it gets a lot weirder, because the distance between the two particles doesn’t affect their entangled behavior.

Under entanglement, measuring a property of one particle determines

the outcome of the measurement on the other particle. It’s been proposed that the correlation between entangled particles happens instantaneously — certainly faster than the speed of light. Einstein famously called this “spooky action at a distance.” This non-distance-related relationship is called “non-locality.”

Initially, many scientists felt that non-locality or “action at a distance” was too spooky to be correct. They proposed that there were “hidden local variables” that cause particles to behave in the same manner. So quantum entanglement wasn’t actually a thing.
This idea of hidden local variables was famously tested in 1972 in the Freedman–Clauser experiment, conducted at Berkeley, which proved that there was no pre-determined, local-variable-governed behavior in quantum particles. Quantum entanglement is real.

But again, it gets weirder. Measuring the state of one particle in an entangled pair destroys the entanglement. All of this has implications for materialism.
First, quantum mechanics shows that the old materialistic conception of a universe composed of billiard-ball-like particles bumping around is wrong. The famous wave-particle duality of matter/energy refutes

that model, but certainly so does quantum entanglement, where particles separated by vast distances behave in the same manner through what appears to be an instantaneous link.
Second, quantum entanglement shows that materialistic, mechanistic causation is not enough and you need to be open to other deeper, layers of reality and causality. These implications are precisely why materialistic scientists initially opposed the reality of entanglement and believed (wrongly) there were alternative “hidden local variable” explanations.

Q: Does this point to unseen dimensions or deeper realities, even immaterial ones?
Louisa Gilder remarked that “The world is so much more mysterious than what we just see.”
Gilder closed by quoting the famous mathematician and physicist

John von Neumann who said, “If people do not believe that mathematics is simple, it’s only because they do not understand how complicated life is.”

Yet also mysteriously, the behavior of nature is elegantly described by mathematics — by what was famously called by the Nobel Prize winning theoretical physicist and mathematician Eugene Wigner, “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics.” As he put it: “the enormous usefulness of mathematics in the natural sciences is something bordering on the mysterious and … there is no rational explanation for it “

Q: If these points don’t reveal design in nature, what does?"

Casey Luskin