Creation Moment 5/21/2026 -"standard general definition of materialism"

For though I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth: but now I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth me to be, or that he heareth of me. 

2 Corinthians 12:6

"There is actually no evidence-based reason from human experience to

think that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena (a standard general definition of materialism)." 

MindMatters

Creation Moment 5/14/2026 - Paradigmatic Analysis: Systematic Consistency of YEC

"It is argued that the standard formulation of the creation model
commonly referred to as young-earth creationism (YEC) passes the three standard subtests of systematic consistency rooted in the

rationalist, evidentialist, and experientialist schools of thought: logical consistency, empirical adequacy, and experiential relevance.

The rationalist tends to be suspicious of personal experience. 

The experientialist tends to ignore any evidences which undermine personal experience. 

The evidentialist tends to forget that reason is required to interpret facts as evidence for one view or another. 

A combinational approach, however, betters the situation by incorporating each of these individual tests into a larger analytical scheme. 

Such an approach has sometimes been referred to as the test of systematic consistency.

However, it must be remembered that the test of systematic consistency is a probabilistic test. That is, within the scope of the information presently available to us, the more tests a model passes, the more probable it is that the model corresponds to reality. If it appears to surpass other models in passing these tests, then it is more likely than those models to be true.
As we consider whether or not the YEC model demonstrates a systematic consistency in its account of reality, we are, in fact, evaluating its level of probability as being the correct creation model. The correct creation model should have full correspondence with both God’s Word and God’s world.

The first subtest of systematic consistency is that of logical consistency. This test follows one of the three laws of logic—that is, the law of non-contradiction, which says that A is not non-A.
Technically speaking, logical inconsistency encapsulates not only contradiction but also another closely related form of logical inconsistency called contrariety. 

Contrariety is often confused for contradiction, so clarification is in order. Two propositions contradict one another if the truth of one entails the falsity of the other and if the falsity of one entails the truth of the other. Contrary propositions are similar in that they cannot both be true. However, they differ from contradictories in that they can both be false. Contradiction and contrariety are, in fact, the only two forms of logical inconsistency. 

Therefore, if a set of propositions is to be determined as being false, one simply needs to identify at least one contradiction or contrariety within the set. On the other hand, if no contradiction or contrariety can be identified, then the set of propositions as a paradigm stands as a viable candidate for truth.
YEC model affirms that God has established a regularity in natural processes governed by natural laws (Thus says the Lord: If I have not established My covenant with day and night and the fixed order of heaven and earth, Jeremiah 33:25).
No scientist denies that both uniform and catastrophic processes play a role in shaping the earth. The YEC scientist simply grants a larger role to the catastrophic than do most other scientists.

The second subtest of systematic consistency is that of empirical adequacy. The concept has been emphasized by philosopher Bas C. van Fraassen and, put simply, refers to the scientific accuracy of a theory. According to van Fraassen, a theory is judged to be

empirically adequate “exactly if what it says about observable things and events in the world is true—exactly if it ‘saves the phenomena’”.
Keep in mind, however, that raw data are subject to interpretation. As Stephen Jay Gould notes: “Facts do not ‘speak for themselves’; they are read in the light of theory. … [Science is] not a mechanized, robotlike accumulation of objective information, leading by laws of logic to inescapable interpretation.”
The YEC model can be demonstrated to be empirically adequate in two respects. 

First, its account of reality can consistently integrate the known scientific data within its paradigm. 

Second, it can account for data for which rival creation models cannot. Both criteria must be met in order for the model to be a competitive scientific model.

The third subtest of systematic consistency is that of experiential relevance.
Of the three subtests discussed in this paper, that of experiential relevance tends to be the most difficult to demonstrate. This is because experience, while real, is often privatized and interpreted subjectively. This in turn leads to conflicts between personal experiences—or, really, conflicts between interpretations of these experiences.
The greatest point of experiential relevance for the YEC model is its explanation for the problem of evil. The model maintains that God’s original creation was free from pain, suffering, and death. Such

things are consequences of sin’s entrance into the world at the fall of man.
The YEC model affirms this inner sense and offers a satisfactory explanation for its validity: things are not the way they are supposed to be because the originally very good creation free from pain, suffering, and death has been lost. 

However, the Bible also offers the good news that we will one day see the heavens and the earth restored to their originally very good state free from sin and all its consequences." 

CMI

The spirit behind Marx

Wherefore by their fruits 

ye shall know them. 

Matthew 7:20

Q: What was the fruit of Marx?
A: Nearly 100,000,000 body bags filled globally the last century.

"Robert Payne was a British academic .... he did a couple did several works on Marx late 60s early 1970s....was really the first one to mine Marx's poetry and it's deeply disturbing stuff--it a lot of it is about the devil-- quite literally about the devil it's chilling:

"Heaven I forfeited I Know It full well my heart once true to God is chosen for hell."....straight Lucifer from from Milton 1837 and it was
1841 and here he puts himself it appears in the form of this kind of

mad violinist who's like frenetically maniacally sawing away at the violin and he's summoning up the powers of Darkness and he's doing this in front of his love interest and the love interest yeah right and the love interest.

Robert Payne says appears to be his girl at the time Jenny the girl that he would that he would end up marrying and he's summoning up the powers of darkness and she's saying why are you doing this to him it's here's he stands up and tells the girl:

"Look now my blood Dark

Sword shall stab unerringly within thy Soul 

the hellish Vapors rise and fill the brain 

till I go mad and my heart is utterly changed 

see the sword the Prince of Darkness sold it to me 

for he beats the time and gives the signs

 ever more boldly I play the dance of death."

Robert Payne says picture Marx standing there in the middle of a burned down Village, burnt down house, building and Flames all around him you know everything that exists deserves to perish and as if to say now we can begin right he wants to take everything.

The Communist may be summed up in the single sentence abolition of private property --- so that's gone, in the manifesto they write abolition of the family exclamation mark even the most radical flare up of this Infamous proposal of the Communists.

Marx of the six kids he and Jenny had four of them died before they did. 

*Then the two girls that survived both committed suicide in suicide packs with their husbands and by drinking poison and as you noticed in the Marx's poetry a recurring theme in all of his poetry is about the couples coming together the one the pale Maiden which sounds like a late night be movie horror flick. 

This pale Maiden drinks Hemlock she commits suicide -- lovers committing suicide and suicide packs. That's how Marx's two daughters died.

The Communist Manifesto is kind of a Diatribe. 

There's a lot of anger in there.
The only part of the end of the Communist Manifesto anybody
remembers is "workers of the world unite".

But if you just go back one paragraph at the end right the Communists support every revolutionary movement and the forcible overthrow of all existing conditions.

Marx was obsessed with these ideas of conjuring up the underworld despite his professed atheism .... by the way even the phrase "each according to his ability to according to his needs" that's a twisting of the scripture of the New Testament.

Alinsky in the intro to Rules for Radicals lest we forget at least an over the shoulder acknowledgement to that first of all Rebels who won himself his own kingdom ....you don't walk by that sort of statement accidentally. 

These are the same people who think that Milton's Lucifer is a hero and give their magazines names like the Jacobin. 

Q: Why would you name your magazine after a group that guillotined 40,000 people in France in 1793 and 1794?

Lucifer is an usurper. He's the spirit that wants to over throw everything and put himself at the top.

Dr. Bruno Bauer, University of Bonn, he was a professor of theology who was an atheist...he's eventually run out of the University but he and Marx became very tight....for Palm Sunday they rode in on donkeys together kind of mocking the entrance of Christ into Jerusalem so they're imitating or mocking Christ entering Jerusalem. 

They would go into churches together he and Bruno Bauer and laugh and kind of make noise in the Pew just to be disrespectful. 

So he's angry and throughout his life no one liked him.

War I and World War II combined so that ideology was pretty hellacious to say the least. It's very naive not to assume that the events that we described in Marx's life are not connected to his economic policies. ... calling on Dark Forces obviously so because otherwise they wouldn't have compelled people in that manner especially not toward the that sort of immense sadistic murderousness and utter destructiveness and of course get to the

hatred of God which all the Communists did so all the Communists thereafter seek to ban religion. They're not exactly atheists because they're trying to stomp something out. It's not just a neutrality. 

It is militant aggressive atheism. Trotsky and Lenin create the league of the militant Godless. They ban religion, they have the Moscow Church trials, they blow up churches, they jail priests. 

Lenin said all worship of a Divinity is a necrophilia. There is nothing more abominable than religion so they don't just try to stop religion.

What the Communists did to the religious Enterprise is evidence of something far more militant than a mere atheism.

Analyzing the history of Stalinist Soviet Union including the Leninist
period what you see fundamentally is a celebration of sadistic Devastation that's the fundamental goal -- the flag waving about the new Utopia that's going to be created.

Christ says them man does not live on bread alone but the Marxists actually acts as if man does live on bread precisely. They believe that if you solve the economic problem if you solve the class problem." 

Krangor

Refuting Hitler

"In recent weeks, AI-generated translations of Hitler’s speeches have

gone viral, reaching millions around the world.
People are hearing Hitler’s words in their own language for the first time.
The National Socialists, racists and Social Darwinists, treat us like cattle, or breeds of dogs.
And the idea of ‘race’ itself is a social idea - it comes from Social Darwinism.

The policy wasn’t “privatization”; it was “Gleichschaltung” - forced synchronization, which is a nationalization of all businesses and social groups. 

Heavy social regulations impacted every industry, price controls were imposed on every good and service, there was a central

distribution of goods, and central planning boards for coal, textiles, timber, batteries, paper and steel - amongst many others. The beekeeping and bowling clubs, the canary breeders and the stamp collectors, the youth organizations, the yacht clubs, the media, the economy, the schools, the trade unions, the police - everything
was synchronized with the state, nationalized by the state, socialized by the state.

What the National Socialists do is deny our humanity - 

deny our ability to think. 

Yes, you might be born into a certain family that has held certain beliefs, and you might even have grown up to embrace those beliefs. 

But the fact you have a brain, and the fact that you could use that

brain to grow and learn, means that you have the potential to change those beliefs. (I’m not saying you ‘should’ change those beliefs, but that you ‘could’ if those beliefs turned out to be wrong.) 

And so, yes, you ‘could’ fall into a certain belief system, or a certain culture, a religion, or ideology… but that doesn’t mean you will necessarily stay there.
Therefore, saying that someone is pre-determined to act in a certain way because they came from a certain background, nation, race, gender or whatever, isn’t correct because it denies the one thing that makes us human - our minds. 

National Socialists deny our humanity and lower us to the level of dogs and cattle. And so, if you are human, and if you use your brain, then you are not a breed of dog, you are not a type of cattle, and you are not your skin color. 

(So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; ... Genesis 1:27)

You are not an animal, you are not a race - 

you are a human, 

and therefore, 

an individual." 

TIKhistory

Creation Moment 4/9/2026 - Creator of time

"The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a 

beginning. 

 It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause. 

 The universe therefore requires a cause, just as Genesis 1:1(In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.) and Romans 1:20 (For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.) teach. 

God, as Creator of time, is outside of time. 

Therefore, He had no beginning in time, has always existed, and so does not need a cause."
CMI

Creation Moment 3/18/2026 - Morality: Defined by a CREATOR

"The Bible tells us that God is the Creator of all things, and therefore, all things belong to Him (The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein, Psalm 24:1). Thus, God as the Creator has the right to define absolute standards of behavior.

Dr. Greg Bahnsen (1948–95) states, “What does the unbeliever

[person who rejects the Biblical God] mean by ‘good,’ or by what standard does the unbeliever determine what counts as ‘good’ (so that ‘evil’ is accordingly defined or identified)? What are the presuppositions in terms of which the unbeliever makes any moral judgments whatsoever?”

Although unbelievers may classify actions as good or evil, they do not have an ultimate foundation for defining what is good and evil." AIG

Creation Moment 1/7/2026 - Peace vs. Darwinian Struggle

Peace I leave with you, 

My peace I give unto you: 

not as the world giveth, give I unto you.

 Let not your heart be troubled, 

neither let it be afraid. 

John 14:7

"In the years following Darwin, struggle became a dominant theme in western thought. Struggle was seen as a creative force driving progress in biology, society, economics, and war. It was used to justify imperialism, racial hierarchies, and eugenics.

Chess champion and philosopher Emanuel Lasker took this line in his 1906 book Kampf (rendered Struggle in the 1907 English translation). Hitler’s Mein Kampf, in English translation, kept the original German title, but some English versions rendered the title parenthetically as My Struggle.

Nietzsche reframed the Darwinian struggle as the will to power, an affirmative creative force where exceptional individuals overcome obstacles to achieve self-mastery, higher values, and cultural vitality.

We might therefore say that struggle, by extending natural selection and the competition inherent in it to all spheres of life, became the god of the Darwinian age." 

EN&V

Creation Moment 11/17/2025 - The Poverty of Scientific Language

For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God Himself that formed the earth and made it; He hath established it, He created it not in vain, He formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else. Isaiah 45:18

The BBC recently ran an article titled “The Mystery of Why Leaves Change Colour in the Autumn,” November 1, 2025. True to form, it spoke the language of science: chlorophylls breaking down, anthocyanins forming, wavelengths shifting under cooler light. It was all accurate, all informative—and yet somehow insufficient.

C.S. Lewis once warned that the more precise our language becomes, the less real experience it can contain. “There is,” he wrote, “a

special region of experiences which can be communicated by Scientific language, namely its common measurable features—but most experience cannot. To be incommunicable by Scientific language is, so far as I can judge, the normal state of experience.”

Science is a marvelous servant but a poor companion.

Its precision is power, but also poverty: a self-imposed blindness to what cannot be quantified. 

Science can measure wavelength but not vision—the crystalline sparkle of an Autumn morning. 

It can weigh pigments but not beauty. 

The very act of quantifying the world narrows it. Like reason itself, science holds to truth only when it knows its limits and limits its knowledge-claims.

We live inside a drama—the living world, the interplay of time and

season—and science writes its own narrative about that drama. The BBC article, like most in its genre, sought an evolutionary explanation of the “mystery,” invoking the E-word five times: perhaps red leaves warn insects; perhaps the pigments protect the tree as it retrieves nutrients before winter. Every explanation presumes that there must be an evolutionary explanation—an adaptive reason for the color.

Q: But what if the colors are not primarily adaptive? What if they are beauty that functions?

Evolutionary thinking assumes that beauty must pay its way, that splendor is tolerated only if it serves survival. A teleological view begins elsewhere: that beauty itself belongs to the design—not accidental, not adaptive, but intrinsically expressive of order and the value woven into the world." 

CEH

"Typical Autumn Colors:

Red: Often associated with warmth and excitement, red is a prominent color in autumn foliage. It symbolizes passion and can create a striking visual impact when used in designs.

Orange: This color embodies the essence of fall, reminiscent of pumpkins and autumn sunsets. It evokes feelings of warmth and comfort.
Yellow: Bright and cheerful, yellow represents the fading sunlight of autumn days. It adds a sense of brightness and optimism to the fall palette.
Brown: Earthy and grounding, brown reflects the natural elements of the season, such as tree bark and fallen leaves. It provides a warm backdrop for other autumn colors.
Gold: Often seen in the changing leaves, gold adds a touch of elegance and richness to the autumn color scheme." 

msn

Creation Moment 5/18/2025 - If Nature Can Be Made Sense Of......

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,... 

Romans 1:22

"Two articles in Popular Mechanics, both by Darren Orf, provide an opportunity of exemplifying Hegelian logic, clarifying its meaning and usage, and displaying the contradictory marriage of Darwinian materialism and Hegelian process metaphysics:

Scientists Found a Paradox in Evolution—and It May Become the Next Rule of Biology (Darren Orf, Popular Mechanics, 24 May 2024).

First, Orf’s older article from 2024:

"Across the sciences, rules and laws help us make sense of the world around us, whether applied to cosmic scales or subatomic ones. However, in the biological world, things are a bit more complicated. That’s because nature is often full of biological exceptions, and so “rules of biology” are also considered broad generalizations rather than absolute facts that explain and govern all known life."

Note first the idea of law being expressed here. “Rules and laws help us make sense of the world around us.” 

There are two levels of meaning here. 

First, WE (human beings) are MAKING sense. There is in science

an active mental component to the formulation of laws and rules, and the laws and rules we make (formulate/theorize and test) are rationalized accounts (stories) of what we observe in nature – the empirical data. 

Second, however, is the more unconscious assumption on which the process of making sense (science) rests: that there is a sense to be made. It is this last assumption – that there exists in nature an objective rationality to be discovered – that Darwinian biology has systematically and progressively denied for the last century and a half through the adoption of a materialist metaphysics.

The realization that rationality implies rationality (logicians call this a “tautology” and Creationists “common sense”) has been slowly but undeniably dawning on evolutionary biologists as evidence mounts, evoking a Kuhnian crisis in the discipline. It is becoming evident, sometimes even to Darwinian biologists, that rationality is not just in our minds. It is also a real structural component of nature. In other words,

… if science can make sense of nature, 

then nature must be made from or by Sense.

There is, however, another twist or complication in the quotation above, further elaborating what a law of nature means. The laws of physics and chemistry discovered by science are inviolable as exemplified by the laws of thermodynamics, which adequately explain inorganic nature. They are necessary.

The contradiction between determinism (necessity) and free-will is dispelled by the realization that they are not different things at all, but mere moments that are overcome in the evolution of reality that is Spirit.

Before we continue with this article, we should pause to note a few very important aspects of Hegel’s process metaphysics – the logic of Darwinian evolution. 

1) it is driven by contradiction. 

2) it is inexorably progressive, moving ever onward and upward into greater complexity and comprehension, and this is because it is the process of Self (Spirit) coming-to-consciousness. 

3) it is a logic of narratives, of retrospective storytelling. Thus, it can – indeed, it must – account for anything and everything.

Knowing Hegel as I do, I was instantly drawn to the title, “Scientists found a paradox in evolution – and it may become the next rule of biology.” 

“Paradox” is another word for (an apparent) contradiction, right? And now the proposal is that the contradiction become a rule or “law” of evolutionary biology. Not surprising, as evolutionary biology stands on contradiction and is logically driven by contradiction. If this sounds like the Hegelian dialectic we just observed in action, it should.

Never forget that Hegelian reasoning is a retrospective producer of narratives. Wherever and whenever stuff happens Hegel’s dialectical logic will preserve the story, as contradiction is the very engine of its “progress." CEH

Creation Moment 5/11/2025 - Mystery of the Mind & Will

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

"Those two powers are intellect and will.

In general, intellect refers to the capacity to think abstractly about concepts instead of specific objects. It is the ability to reason, use judgment, have concepts, and use logic and language. For example, emotion may prompt a lonely man to think about adopting a puppy. Reason bids him to think about the responsibility he is taking on for, perhaps, fifteen years.

--Will is the ability to choose based on reason. 

--In this sense, will follows on intellect. 

--The intellect is directed to knowing truth. 

The will is directed to seeking good. A properly functioning will

should prompt the man to make a decision based on what is best for the dog as well as for himself, not merely on the emotion he is feeling as he cuddles the dog at the pet adoption center.

The intellect tells the will (so to speak) what is good, and the will pursues it. While normal brain function is necessary for the normal exercise of intellect and will, brain function is not sufficient for them. 

Your intellect and will are immaterial—i.e., —powers of your soul.

Abstract thought can have exact and unambiguous conceptual content.
Nothing material can have exact and unambiguous conceptual content.
Therefore, abstract thought is not material.

Materialists counter that our abstract concepts aren’t really exact. They are just very close approximations. But that’s obviously not true—our concepts of geometrical figures or logic itself are genuinely exact. It is matter that is never exact. In fact, the materialist invocation of logic to make their arguments presupposes the precision of logic. If the materialist’s own viewpoint couldn’t be precisely true, it wouldn’t be valid." 

MindMatters

Creation Moment 5/5/2025 - Evolution is Hegelian process-metaphysics

"Sigmund Freud famously postulated the “unconscious mind” to explain the fact that so many of us (how do we even speak of it now without using his language?) are not conscious of the drives and motivations that lie hidden deep within us, and that our outer rational life is the mere tip of an iceberg emerging above the tumultuous sea of conscious existence.

The word “unconscious” (in German unbewusst) was arguably coined by German idealist philosopher Friedrich Schelling (1775-1854), whose book System of Transcendental Idealism played a transformative role in my graduate work at the University of CA, Irvine. Freud’s solution presented a metaphysical picture of consciousness as a submerged mountain progressively surging upward to burst through the surface of the sea into the sunlight of rational conscious human life.

Freud postulated that this sunlit consciousness was “unconscious” of both its origins and its ascent from the muck of the seabed – that the conscious mind “suppressed” these dark and dirty origins and processes from entering the sunlit conscious mind. This is why Freud’s theory is called depth psychology.

The problem?
Q: How can the conscious mind suppress that of which it is unconscious? In order to “censor” the unconscious content, it must first be conscious of the content-to-be-censored, resulting in a contradiction – a conscious unconscious, or as logicians would state it: A and not-A.

The solution?
Consciousness must be an emergent phenomenon that begins in the muck of the seafloor and ascends to progressively higher levels until it rises above the waves into the sunlight, now complex and highly ordered, but (really) nothing other than the seafloor muck that has endured the “natural” and necessary process that compels its ascent. In a word, the unconscious becomes conscious, ascending the ladder to ever-higher consciousness, while at the same time being the same thing as the muck from which it sprung. Consciousness is nothing but the process itself of becoming conscious.

Sound familiar?
It should, as this is the alternative logic – one might fairly call it an

anti-logic – of 18th century philosopher G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1831). This “logic” pervades the modern mind and soul (Ezekiel 14). It is the essence of Marxism, socialism, Freudian theory, Darwinism, postmodernism, Wokism, the advance of atheism and a host of other modern maladies that are systematically dismantling the scientific, moral and cultural achievements of the Western world nourished and enabled by Christianity.

Q: What has all this got to do with the concept of evolving evolvability?
Everything.
Hegel’s philosophical system is built on the denial of a fundamental law of (Aristotelian) logic – the law of non-contradiction. In natural language this states that it cannot be the case that both a proposition and its negation are true.

In logical notation: ~[A and ~A].
In other words, Hegel’s dialectical logic embraces contradiction – that which Aristotelian logic forbids. In practice this embrace means that contradiction is simply a part of (or, using Hegel’s terminology, “a moment in”) the process that is logic. Hegel’s logic embraces contradiction as the engine of progressive development.

For Hegel, “all that exists is logical, and all that is logical exists.”

This is process-metaphysics.
Like Einstein’s E=MC2, what is is reducible to a single fundamental “thing” (philosophers call this “monism”) from which all else is compounded: in Einstein’s case the fundamental underlying substance is energy; in Hegel, it is the progressive process of logic.

What is also evident, however, to any thinking being (and Hegel was a stunningly brilliant thinker) is that logic – the process of thought – is inextricably anchored in mind. If mind did not underlay reality, it could not emerge from it. Like the scientific law of biogenesis – life can only come from life, so consciousness can only emerge from consciousness. Hegel’s logic (here, anyway) is impeccable: if consciousness is to emerge, then at some level it must be the very substance from which everything emerges.

For Hegel, as we saw analogously with Freud, there is an ever-ascending logic to reality, a process of becoming conscious. For Hegel, though, there is no independent material “muck,” just the initial (contradictory) conjunction of an unconscious consciousness. From this, all else will emerge. Hegel calls this fundamental “substance” of reality, appropriately, “Spirit.” Because it begins as an unconscious-consciousness it possesses, in ever-increasing clarity, a goal-directedness – it is the process of becoming conscious.

Now to seal the deal.
Marx and Darwin (and their acolytes) are Hegelian metaphysicians – ALL is process, and process is all – but neither wanted Hegel’s mystical notion of Spirit. 

Q: How can a scientific materialistic monist accept that?
“Easy!”, says Marx (he learned so well from Darwin!) “Turn Hegel upside down,” substituting materialism for Hegel’s idealism (non-material) – Spirit. 

This is why Marx’s theory is called “dialectical materialism” – it is Hegel’s dialectical logic applied to metaphysically material monism. Darwin and Marx presuppose (on faith) an ever-ascending process of reality, an EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS, substituting materialism for Hegel’s Spirit, denying the fundamental reality of consciousness. As with Freud, consciousness is derivative, emergent from something else.

Here’s the rub.
The substitution comes at a high price: cognitive and evidentiary dissonance. 

---The material is by itself neither life nor logic, but both life and logic are a part of the world in and with which science operates – without them science, knowledge, rational consciousness itself, are inconceivable.

“In Him we live, move, and have our being” said Paul to the Athenians in Acts 17:28. We would all do better to place our faith and confidence in Him than in this “science falsely so-called.”
John Wise /CEH

3 Eras in the Circle of Time for Earth

He has made everything beautiful in its time. 

He has also set eternity in the human heart; 

yet no one can fathom what God has done 

from beginning to end.

Though a sinner do evil an hundred times, 

and his days be prolonged, 

yet surely I know that it shall be well with them that fear God, which fear before Him:
Ecclesiastes 3:11 NIV/8:12

"By the States of the Earth that are already past, we understand chiefly Paradise and the Deluge; Names well known, and as little known in their Nature. 

By the Future States we understand the Conflagration, and what new Order of Nature may follow upon that, till the whole Circle of Time and Providence be completed.

’Tis the Sacred writings of Scripture 

that are the best monuments of Antiquity, 

and to those we are chiefly beholden for the History of the first Ages, whether Natural History or Civil. ’" 

Thomas Burnett

* The Creation to the Fall

* The Fall to the Flood

* The Flood to the 2nd Advent

Creation Moment 3/7/2025 - Waxing Philosophical

This shall be written for the generation to come: and the people which shall be created shall praise the LORD. Psalm 102:18

"Q: Did meaning and purpose arise from a bottom-up Darwinian process to give us an evolutionary advantage?
Q:Or is the universe infused with meaning and purpose for a deeper reason than survival?

Evolution has no purpose that we can discern, 

nor any reason to have one." 

EN&V

Creation Moment 7/6/2024 - Argument for Theism Based on the Existence of Consciousness

Behold, all his fellows shall be ashamed: and the workmen, they are of men: let them all be gathered together, let them stand up; yet they shall fear, and they shall be ashamed together. 

Isaiah 44:11

"Suppose you want to advance an argument for theism based on the existence of consciousness. Lowder proposes that the following formulation of the argument (where E is the existence of human consciousness, T is theism, and N is naturalism) evades this charge:

(1) E is known to be true, i.e. Pr(E) is close to 1.

(2) N is not intrinsically much more probable than T, i.e., Pr(|N|) is not much greater than Pr(|T|).
(3) Pr(E | T & B) > Pr(E | N & B).
(4) Other evidence held equal, N is probably false, i.e., Pr(N | B & E) < 1/2.

Put into straightforward English, the argument is as follows:
(1) The existence of human consciousness is known to be true.

(2) Naturalism is not intrinsically much more probable than theism.
(3) The probability of the existence of human consciousness given theism and the background information is greater than the probability of the existence of human consciousness given naturalism and the background information.
(4) Other evidence held equal, naturalism is probably false (i.e., the probability of naturalism given the background and the evidence is less than 50 percent).

Intelligent design makes the argument that various specific features of life and the universe — in particular, the informational properties of DNA, and the irreducibly complex nature of molecular systems — are rendered vastly more probable than they would otherwise be by the supposition that a conscious mind was involved in their origins. Thus, they are positively confirmatory of design." 

EN&V

Archaeology: Response to largest known single day CHILD SACRIFICE on planet earth

But they mingled with the nations. And learned their practices, and served their idols, which became a snare to them. They even sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons,
and shed innocent blood. The blood of their sons and their daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idol......And the land was polluted with the blood. Psalm 106:35-38



"Around 1450 AD,

227 children were sacrificed in the Peruvian Chimu culture. The theory is that this great sacrifice was made to appease the rain gods because the rain did not stop, flooding the area, ruining the crops and more." Reddit

A Response to a post-Modernist/woke post on Reddit over largest known single day CHILD SACRIFICE on planet earth. [name of Reddit poster will be withheld].


Original Post-Modernist Post:

"Though it seems vile on its surface,

I’m going to put aside my modern perspective and look at this in a more detached way.

In the case of an upcoming famine because of massive crop failure, the children are likely going to die anyway. A slow and painful death that will scar the working adults and also encourage them to waste what little food they do have trying to save their children.

I can see how the leaders might take a decision to kill off some extra mouths to feed, prioritizing the fully grown workers so that there is more chance of saving the civilization as a whole.

The ceremonial religious sacrifice part of it could also serve a purpose, to make those parents feel as if their loss had more meaning, possibly some control over the situation too. Certainly slightly less traumatic than a kill squad going door to door.

Anyway I’m just trying to offer a different perspective, feel free to assume people from radically different times and cultures are simply wrong and evil, and that we are so much more civilized now without any introspection in to how ****** up things still are."

My Response/Observation:

I'm going to try looking at this without a post-modernist/woke/PC lens. Let's view through a Biblical lens.

1) Apparently long before cars, planes and air conditioners, (supposedly causing man-made "global warming") there were droughts. Long before the Climate Change Cult there was" weather" that went through cycles. LIKE TODAY. 

So now, instead of venerating idols (as our pagan ancestors did) we are more sophisticated in our paganistic veneration of mother earth, we use charts and words like "science" and are willing to sacrifice our standard of living to it and even listen to some who call for "population control" in the name of it (which means, if these people ever fully get their way, someone among us must be sacrificed to appease the mother earth goddess).And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 

Romans 1:23

2) As our ancestors turned from God along their paths from Babel they turned to False gods as their hearts were darkened. (Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God,

neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Romans 1:21) to the point that they sacrificed their own children before lifeless pagan deities. Today, there is nothing new. The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Ecclesiastes 1:9

We too sacrifice our children on the Altar of Self via abortion [snuffing out beating hearts that haven't yet sinned] and even march for it DEMANDING it as a right---despite claiming how enlightened we are today. The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? Jeremiah 17:9

3) The very fact we have people on cyberspace trying to justify or downplay the evil of killing their own children with the argument that they would probably die anyway speaks volumes of the age of Enlightened Man. 

Q: Hast thou marked the old way which wicked men have trodden? Job 22:15