Repent Labs

There is NO 'Ethical' IVF

TL;DR IVF is wrong, even in its most carefully constructed “ethical” form. Even when only one embryo is created, immediately transferred, and none are frozen, discarded, or genetically screened. The problem with IVF is foundational, not merely executional. At its core, IVF replaces God’s design for conception, allows humans to own other humans, and voluntarily increases a child’s risk of death by 10X. Repent Labs is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Is IVF Necessary? IVF, or in vitro fertilization, is a medical fertility treatment where eggs are retrieved from a woman’s ovaries, fertilized with sperm in a lab, and then an embryo is implanted in the uterus to achieve pregnancy. It’s commonly used when natural conception fails due to issues like blocked tubes, low sperm count, or ovulation problems. Embryos undergo preimplantation genetic testing (PGT), where a cell sample checks for chromosomal issues or genetic diseases to select healthy ones. Viable extras (often several from 8 to 10 embryos) are frozen via cryopreservation for future use. The first thing to understand is that IVF is not the necessary and exclusive fix for infertility. For those that are struggling with fertility, yet still want a biological child (if God wills), there are great alternative treatments, the best of which is NaPro. IVF operates like a numbers game: spend $12K to $30K per attempt, plan for 3 to 4 cycles minimum, intentionally create dozens of children knowing most won’t survive, and hope “probability” works in your favor, all while insurance fights you at every turn. Costs can easily exceed $100,000. It’s a high-tech, high-stakes gamble that assumes your body is broken beyond repair and needs to be bypassed entirely. NaPro works like actual medicine: it investigates the root cause and restores what’s not functioning properly. It costs (at max) roughly what one IVF cycle would, except it’s treating you as a patient with a medical condition rather than a customer buying lottery tickets with human embryos. The “Perfect” IVF Scenario Christians who oppose IVF typically focus on the industry’s most obvious ethical violations: frozen embryos warehoused indefinitely, genetic screening that reduces children to quality-control metrics, the routine creation of dozens of embryos knowing 91% or more won’t survive, and gay couples purchasing children through surrogates. These objections are valid. They’re also insufficient. Because even if you stripped away every one of these problems, even if you constructed the most carefully constrained IVF scenario imaginable, the procedure would still be categorically sinful. The issue isn’t merely how IVF is practiced. The issue is what IVF fundamentally is. Before addressing the core problem, let’s acknowledge what most Christians already reject. If you’re freezing embryos, you’re incarcerating your children. If you’re doing genetic screening, you’re treating image-bearers like defective products. If you’re creating ten embryos knowing nine will die, you’re responsible for their deaths. If you’re using surrogates or donors, you’re bypassing God’s design for procreation. But some Christians push back here. They ask: “What if we avoid all of that? What if a married Christian couple uses only their own gametes, creates a single embryo, transfers it immediately without freezing or screening, and implants it in the mother’s womb? Wouldn’t this be ethical? After all, we’re just using technology to overcome the effects of the fall, the same way someone might use surgery to save their life.” It’s a reasonable question. It deserves a serious answer. The Fantasy of “Ethical IVF” A truly “perfect” IVF setup (one that creates only a single embryo, transfers it fresh immediately, never freezes or discards embryos, never uses genetic testing, and operates this way as standard practice) essentially does not exist in today’s market. Why? Because the entire IVF industry is built around the assumption of multiple cycles. Biologically, IVF depends on ovarian stimulation to retrieve multiple eggs because attrition is massive at every step. Not every follicle yields a mature egg. Not every egg fertilizes. Not every embryo develops normally. Not every transfer implants. Forcing the system into a “one egg, one embryo, one transfer” model makes success rates catastrophically low and cancellation rates high. The mechanics work like this: when a clinic retrieves eggs, they don’t know which ones will successfully fertilize. If you start with five eggs, perhaps three become actual embryos. Of those three, maybe one or two develop properly. This uncertainty is why clinics retrieve multiple eggs in the first place. Even if a couple requests “only one embryo,” the cycle success rate drops to 5-20% (just for this stage). This means paying for a new cycle over and over until you successfully can move on, which could take 5-10 cycles. Economically, clinics survive by spreading high fixed costs (labs, embryologists, equipment, accreditation) over many embryos, transfers, and add-on services like frozen embryo storage and genetic testing. A clinic that never generated surplus embryos, never froze them, and never used screening would sacrifice most of the revenue and success leverage that keeps it profitable. Even if one couple chose an ultra-restrictive protocol, the clinic’s broader business would still rely on conventional IVF practices just to stay solvent. At best, a couple might negotiate a more constrained version for themselves inside a system whose default remains multi-embryo creation, freezing, and selection. But a clinic structured and committed to operate exclusively under “ethical” constraints? It’s a pipe dream. But let’s be generous. Let’s assume such a clinic existed. Let’s grant that you could find a way to do it profitably. Would IVF then be permissible? No. Even in the “perfect” scenario, IVF remains objectively sinful. Here’s why. 1. IVF Replaces God’s Design Instead of Restoring It God’s Word is clear: there is one exclusive path to creating and receiving children. The marital union. In Genesis 1:28, God blesses Adam and Eve and commands them: And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth. Immediately after, in Genesis 2:24, we read: Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. This one-flesh union is personal, bodily, and exclusive, so the “fruit” of the marriage naturally proceeds from the embrace God ordained. In other words, the Bible weds the “what” of multiplication to the “how” of marital intercourse. The child is received as the gift that comes from husband and wife cleaving to one another. To seek offspring apart from that union severs what God joined, whereas receiving children through conjugal oneness honors the shape of creation. Psalm 127:3 reinforces this: Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one’s youth. Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate. You can actually take this imagery further. The seed (man), the tree (the woman’s womb), and the fruit (children). God designed one process for procreation, and He embedded it in the covenant of marriage. Sexual intimacy within marriage is the means. The womb is the location. Children are the gift. IVF fundamentally alters this design. Conception Begins in the Lab, Not the Womb The objection here is predictable: “But we’re still married. We’re still using our own samples. We’re just using technology to help the process along. Isn’t that dominion? Are you saying cars are sinful too?” The issue isn’t technology, but what technology does. IVF doesn’t start with marital intimacy. It starts with samples. The sperm and egg are retrieved separately, brought to a laboratory, and combined by a technician under fluorescent lights. Day zero for that child is not in the mother’s womb. Day zero is in a petri dish. You can’t appeal to the marital act that produced the samples (even though most IVF sperm samples are taken sinfully) because those samples were not connected together in the mothers body via the one flesh union. Instead, you have a technician who combines these samples and creates an embryo. Now, the child’s existence has begun, not through the one-flesh union of husband and wife, but through a mechanical procedure in a lab. Dominion vs. Demonic Technology The purpose of technology matters. Doug Wilson put it well: “In order to evaluate a tool, we have to account for the telos, the end, the purpose. Hammers are used to build both brothels and barns.” Dominion technology works within God’s design to restore what the fall has broken. NaProTechnology, for example, investigates the root cause of infertility and treats it medically. The goal is to restore the body so that conception can occur naturally: through the one-flesh union, in the womb, as God designed. The process hasn’t changed. The design hasn’t been circumvented. IVF does the opposite. It doesn’t fix what’s broken. It abandons the original design entirely and substitutes a new process. The end result may be a child, but the means by which that child came into existence is fundamentally different from what God ordained. Consider pornography. The technology that makes porn more accessible isn’t neutral. It’s being used to provide sexual pleasure (a good thing) outside of God’s design for marriage. The efficiency of the technology doesn’t justify its use. The purpose disqualifies it. IVF operates on the same principle. It creates children (an immeasurably good thing) through a process God never authorized. No amount of technological sophistication changes that. Jesus Anchors Marriage to Genesis When the Pharisees questioned Jesus about divorce in Matthew 19:4-6, He didn’t cite a verse about divorce. He went back to Genesis: Matthew 19:4–6 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” Jesus took the principle from Genesis and applied it to a specific situation. The creation account isn’t just descriptive. It’s normative. God’s design for marriage, sexuality, and procreation is the blueprint. Any deviation from that blueprint, no matter how technologically sophisticated, is sin. IVF asks us to believe that God’s design can be improved upon, that we can relocate conception from the womb to the lab and call it progress. But if God’s design is truly His design, then our job is to work within it, not around it. The Slippery Slope Is Already Here If you accept the premise that conception can legitimately occur outside the womb, you’ve opened a door you can’t close. If it’s acceptable to take one piece of the pro-creation process and perform it in a lab, what about: * A single woman cloning herself and growing the embryo in an artificial womb? * A married couple using an artificial womb instead of the wife’s body because it’s “safer” or more “convenient”? The argument that “we’re still using a married couple’s gametes” doesn’t solve the problem. It concedes that the location and means of conception are negotiable. Once you’ve moved conception out of the womb, you’ve lost the foundation to argue it must stay tied to marriage at all. 2. Parents Choose Higher Risk for the Child Here’s the part most IVF advocates don’t want to acknowledge: the child never consented to being brought into existence with a drastically higher chance of death. The Statistics Are Devastating CDC 2022 ART data reports about 251,000 egg retrieval cycles resulting in roughly 94,000 live births, a roughly 37% success rate per cycle, but with an average of 4 to 6 embryos created per cycle (from 10 to 15 eggs retrieved, 70 to 80% fertilized, and 40 to 50% reaching blastocyst stage), this equates to 1.0 to 1.5 million total embryos (children) and a 6 to 9% live birth rate per created child. Long story short: 91 to 94% of children conceived through IVF die. In stark contrast, natural conceptions in the same year produced 3.67 million live births from roughly 5.5 million recognized pregnancies, yielding roughly a 67% live birth rate per clinical pregnancy after typical 10 to 20% miscarriages. If we control for abortion (roughly 17% of pregnancies), the natural success rate rises to roughly 85 to 90% carried to term (assuming viable), far above IVF’s success rate. That’s a 10x higher failure rate. The Abortion Parallel The objection here is predictable: “But natural pregnancy has risks too. Miscarriages happen. That’s a part of our fallen world.” However the question that must be asked is: who decided? Natural risks fall under God’s sovereignty. IVF risks are your culpable choice. You knowingly subjected your child to a process with a 91% death rate because you wanted a child badly enough to bypass God’s design. People actually make the same objection with abortion. “Since miscarriages happen so often, the abortion doesn’t matter anyway, let me kill it.” And all Christians should read that and say, “The answer is obvious. God stopped the development of those miscarried children. You, on the other hand, have hired a hitman to murder your child.” We must apply the same logic to this situation. God’s Design Is Better NaProTechnology, by contrast, has higher success rates than IVF, operates within God’s design, and doesn’t create and destroy children at industrial scale. It restores the body so that conception can occur naturally. The child’s life begins where God intended: in the womb, through the marital union. The principle is this; God’s design is always better, because it’s His universe. It’s better to eat food straight from the farm than to bleach it, strip the nutrients, and artificially add them back in. It’s better to breastfeed than to use formula (when physically possible). It’s better to conceive naturally than to manufacture a child in a lab. Culpability Through Purchase In natural conception, you don’t control the developmental process. Miscarriages happen under God’s sovereignty. You didn’t choose to create the child in a high-risk environment. You followed God’s design, and the outcome, however painful, was not your doing. But with IVF, you chose to create your child in a laboratory. You chose to pay for a procedure with a 91% death rate. You chose to subject them to handling, potential freezing, and implantation, all of which carry significant risks. You made that decision. The clinic made it possible. You’re both culpable. The Entitlement Idol The mentality driving IVF is difficult to escape. As much as couples may protest otherwise, the willingness to bypass God’s design reveals an underlying assumption: I am entitled to children, no matter what God thinks. When natural conception fails, the biblical response is prayer, medical treatment that restores the body (like NaPro), and submission to God’s sovereignty. Infertility is painful. It’s heartbreaking. But it doesn’t grant us permission to rewrite the rules. Pursuing IVF, even in its “cleanest” form, reveals that the desire for children has eclipsed obedience to God’s design. You want a child so badly that you’re willing to create one through a process God never authorized, a process that statistically results in far more death than natural conception. And once you’re in the system, the temptation to compromise intensifies. You’ve spent $50,000. Two years of heartbreak. You’ve done one embryo at a time, and it hasn’t worked. Maybe you try ten embryos next time. Maybe you freeze some. Maybe you add genetic screening “just to be safe.” Hannah vs. Hagar Scripture gives us two contrasting examples of how to respond to infertility. Hannah, barren and heartbroken, prayed. She wept at the door of the temple daily. She pleaded with God. And God, in His timing, answered her prayer and granted her a son (1 Samuel 1). Hagar, by contrast, represents the flesh. Abraham had a promise from God that he would have a child. But when Sarah remained barren, Abraham took matters into his own hands. He went to Hagar, Sarah’s servant, and conceived a child outside of God’s design. Paul uses this as an illustration in Galatians 4, contrasting the child of promise (Isaac) with the child of the flesh (Ishmael). What Abraham did was sinful. He didn’t trust God. He subverted God’s design because he wanted to force the outcome on his own terms. IVF is the modern Hagar. It’s taking matters into your own hands. It’s saying, “God hasn’t given me a child through the means He designed, so I’ll use technology to make it happen myself.” And to make it worse, Abraham had a promise from God. Modern Christian couples do not even have that, and yet they’re willing to do the same thing. 3. IVF Turns Children Into Commodities Even with pure motives and no intent to traffic children, IVF still involves purchasing a child. You pay a clinic. The clinic retrieves eggs, fertilizes them, and creates embryos. Once the egg is fertilized, you have a child, no matter how small. The clinic’s job is to produce that child and implant it. Whether the child survives development is another question, but make no mistake: you paid someone to create a human being for you. Legal Classification as Property In most U.S. states, embryos are legally classified as property: chattel or marital assets. They can be disposed of via patient contracts, consent forms, and judicial rulings. Only Alabama and Louisiana treat them differently. Legally, you own the children the clinic creates for you. Can humans own other humans? The nature of the transaction also shifts how children are perceived. They’re no longer a heritage from the Lord, received as a gift through the covenant of marriage. They’re a deliverable, expected from a service provider you’ve contracted for a product. The Distinction from Adoption Someone might object: “But adoption involves money too. Are you saying adoption is sinful?” No. Adoption is fundamentally different. Adoption is a response to sin. A child has been abandoned, orphaned, or removed from an unsafe situation. The adoptive parents step in to provide what the child’s biological parents cannot or will not. The fees involved cover legal processes, agency costs, and administrative work. The parents are not paying to create a child. They’re paying to legally formalize their responsibility for a child who already exists and needs a home. IVF, by contrast, is seeking through money and scientific manipulation to create a child. You’re initiating existence, not responding to abandonment. The clinic’s deliverable is a human being. Conclusion IVF is not a gray area. It’s not a matter of personal conviction or disputable opinion. It is, by definition, a fundamental departure from God’s design for procreation. Even in the “perfect” scenario (where no embryos are frozen, no genetic screening is used, and only one embryo is created), IVF still relocates conception from the marital union and the womb to the laboratory and the technician’s hands. It still commodifies children. It still reduces their survival rate tenfold for the sake of adult desire. The issue isn’t just the industry’s abuses. The issue is the procedure itself. God has ordained one method of procreation: the one-flesh union of husband and wife, within marriage, resulting in children as a gift from the Lord. Any process that circumvents this design (no matter how technologically sophisticated or carefully constrained) remains sin. If you are struggling with infertility, you are not crazy for suffering. That pain is real, and it’s heartbreaking. But the answer is not to bypass God’s design. The answer is submission to His sovereignty, medical treatment that restores rather than replaces, and trust that He is good even when He says no. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.repentlabs.com/subscribe [https://www.repentlabs.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]

Apostate: The Consequences of LGBT, Transgenderism, Abortion, IVF, Surrogacy & Feminism

For the last century, America has been conducting a massive social experiment, tearing down every boundary that held society together for thousands of years. "Love is love," they said. "My body, my choice," they insisted. "Gender is just a construct," they declared. Well, the results are in…and they’re ugly. The statistics don't lie, the bodies don't lie, and the broken families littering our streets don't lie. When you look at the data - not opinions, not feelings, but hard numbers - you see a nation bleeding out from self-inflicted wounds. Mental illness at unprecedented levels. Suicide rates that would have been unthinkable two generations ago. Children turning to crime and addiction at rates that should terrify us all. Murder, disease, anxiety, abuse…and so much more. * What happens when you break up the family and "liberate" women? * What happens when children don't have their fathers? * What happens when homosexuality spreads like wildfire? * What happens when children cut off their genitals in exchange for a “new gender”? * What happens when parents decide that having sex does not mean “consenting to pregnancy”? A nation once built upon Christian principles, America has now become an apostate, and God has given us up to our own destructive desires. As it is written: “And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.”Romans 1:28–32 For the non-Christians in America…some of the most sobering proof that Christianity is true is seeing what happens when society rejects its principles. If everything is just stardust bumping around, then none of these things matter. But if God designed creation in a specific way, and everything he made is interconnected (family, relationships, society)…changing even one detail has catastrophic consequences. This is a wake up call to everyone in America. * For the Christians; we need to be bold and teach our nation the whole counsel of God and what it says about all areas of life. * For the non-Christians; Repent and turn to God. Look at what’s happened to our society when it’s built on godless principles, and put your trust in the King of the cosmos; Jesus Christ. TABLE OF CONTENTS * The Consequences of Feminism * The Consequences of Homosexuality * The Consequences of Transgenderism * The Consequences of Surrogacy and IVF * The Consequences of Murdering Children via Abortion 1. THE CONSEQUENCES OF FEMINISM The first area I’m going to cover is women’s liberation; basically, when we decided that women didn’t need to be attached to a family unit, and that they really aren’t any different from men. To be clear: this isn't going to be a comprehensive history of feminism (there are plenty of substacks [https://isaryan.substack.com/] that cover this). I want to focus on what's happened to our country as a result. The Feminist Blueprint of Death Kate Millett, a huge feminist influencer in the 1960s, laid out the plan clearly. As Joy Pullmann notes in her book False Flag, Millett's "feminist catechism declared that the feminist goal was to make cultural revolution by destroying the American family, which they would accomplish by destroying monogamy." How would they do this? By "promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution, abortion, and homosexuality." Right from the start, second-wave feminists declared these things were connected. They argued that patriarchy was historical, not natural, that femininity and womanhood were not biological conditions but socially constructed ideals that could and should be reconsidered. They wanted nothing less than the eradication of patriarchy. But here's the thing: if gender roles and family structure are just cultural constructs with no biological basis, then there shouldn't be any consequences for changing them, right? Wrong. Dead wrong. Commitment Destroyed The statistics tell a devastating story: * In 1960, only 5% of US babies were born out of wedlock. By 2010, that number had risen to 41% * The number of children living with only their mother has doubled in the last 50 years * The United States has the world's highest rate of children living in single-parent households: 23% When you're not married, the commitment isn't there. People can argue "it's just a piece of paper," but if it's just paper, then get it. You're making a covenant before God to be with this person for life. Children pick up on this. They understand the difference between parents who are committed and those who always have one foot out the door. Children Being Abused by Predatory Men & Their Own Mother Here's where it gets dark. Children with two married biological parents have the lowest rate of domestic abuse by far. It's not even close. The worst rates of abuse (mental, physical, sexual) occur when children live with one parent whose unmarried partner is in the house. Think about it: biological mom, dad leaves, she gets a boyfriend who's not married to her. That's the worst-case scenario for abuse. These men aren't committed to these children. They're dating the mother, maybe for sex, maybe for a relationship, but the children aren't their primary concern. When you remove the natural protector, the biological father, you leave the household as sitting ducks for predatory men. But here's what will flip everything you thought you knew: mothers are more likely to abuse their children than fathers. According to 2021 data from the US Department of Health and Human Services: * 38.0% of child victims were maltreated by their mother acting alone * 23.9% by the father acting alone * 20.0% by both parents (co-perpetration) The feminist agenda has pushed this narrative that mothers are always the safe option, the default parent. But look at what actually happens. When you remove the balancing influence of a father, mothers are more likely to abuse. That quarter of American children in single-parent households? They're not just susceptible to abuse from random unmarried partners. They're more susceptible to abuse from their own mothers. The testimony of one woman, Maggie, raised by a single mother, captures it perfectly: "The absence of my father in my life has led to so many awful things. I constantly felt unloved, unworthy, and abandoned. I craved a father figure and protection. This led to me seeking out unhealthy and abusive relationships with men who simply didn't care about me. Men cannot mother. Women cannot father. Kids need, crave, and benefit from having the right to both." Broken Home = Future Degenerate Adults Joy Pullmann's research reveals the broader impact: "People who do not grow up in the homes of their two married biological parents make, on average, worse citizens than people who do. Children afflicted by their parents' and communities' lack of sexual self-discipline have more trouble regulating their emotions, refraining from violence, following logical arguments, providing for themselves, achieving their potential, and respecting others' rights." Think about that list: * Can't regulate emotions * More violent * Can't follow logical arguments * Can't provide for themselves * Don't respect others' rights Sound familiar? Turn on any news channel covering a riot or pride parade. You've seen these people. These children are also: "far more likely to demand public resources than to contribute to them and to accelerate sexual chaos. Look into the background of a transgender person and you'll almost always find parental divorce or another serious childhood trauma.” When you have a large portion of America full of complacent, lazy people relying on the state, completely dependent on what the government may or may not do, that's the fruit of broken families. They're looking for mommy and daddy everywhere, including in their voting booth. It’s simply natural law that men and women are different and have specific, distinct roles. We all know this because God designed it that way. If you decouple women from the family unit, you break down the family unit. If you do that, you destroy the child. The child grows up broken, demanding the state be their parent, supporting authoritarian policies that promise safety like a "substitute mommy”, and functions as a consumer citizen, not a producer. 2. THE CONSEQUENCES OF LGBT So we’ve seen how "liberating" women destroyed the American family. Children without fathers. Mothers overwhelmed and abusing. A quarter of our nation's children living in broken homes, susceptible to predators and dysfunction. But that was just the beginning. Think of liberating women as step one. We still had the potential for a heterosexual unit. Sure, women were "liberated," roles were confused, divorces skyrocketed, but at least there was still the possibility of a man and a woman together. Even if it wasn't ideal, even with step-parents and broken homes, there was still some semblance of the natural order. Step two asks a darker question: If women are exactly like men, if they should be "liberated" to do the same things with no distinct family roles, then what about sexual relationships themselves? Must you have a man and a woman to form a family unit? Or can you have woman and woman, man and man? And if you have a gay relationship, which obviously cannot procreate biologically and exists outside God's design, what do you do? Try to have children through surrogacy or IVF? Just not have children? Marry someone who already has a child? This is step two in the destruction of America: degrading the sexual ties themselves against God's design. God Is Clear Let's start where we should always start: God's Word. The Bible affirms that marriage and sexual intimacy are ordained for one man and one woman. "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." Genesis 2:24 Notice the specifics. A man leaves his father and mother (already implying the natural order) and holds fast to his wife. They become one flesh. This is a specific, designed union from the beginning of creation, woven into the fabric of reality itself. Jesus affirms this when asked about divorce: "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." Matthew 19:4-6 Jesus takes this for granted as the created order. God has joined man and woman together in the unit of husband and wife to procreate, be fruitful, multiply, and take dominion. This is in the creation mandate itself. Contrasting this, Romans 1:26-27 shows what happens when we reject God's design: "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error." This couldn't be more explicit. Paul is referring to homosexual relationships as an extension of God's judgment. When God gives a nation up, homosexuality is one of the pivotal sins we can visualize as a sign of that judgment. People try to perform interpretive gymnastics with these passages, claiming Paul meant something else. Don't waste your time. Any reputable translation, any serious scholar who isn't a deconstructionist fraud will tell you the same thing: Paul is talking about homosexual behavior. Higher Rates of STDs Men who have sex with men (MSM) account for a disproportionate share of serious sexual diseases. Although MSMs comprise only about 2% of the US population, they represented 67% of all new HIV infections in 2022. The rate of syphilis among MSM was 46 times higher than that of heterosexual men. The very nature of these acts, because they're outside God's design and misuse the body in ways it wasn't created for, naturally leads to disease. It's like putting water in a car's gas tank instead of gasoline. It's not just that it won't work; it will break other systems. Higher Rates of Cancer Gay men have significantly higher rates of certain cancers such as anal, colon, and testicular cancer, partly linked to higher rates of HIV and lifestyle factors. Lesbian and bisexual women have higher risks of breast and ovarian cancers, possibly related to lower childbirth and breastfeeding rates. Makes sense, doesn't it? When you reject God's design for procreation and family, the body itself rebels. Suicidal, Depressed and Broken Gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth have significantly higher rates of suicidal thoughts and attempts, major depression, anxiety, and conduct disorders than their heterosexual peers. A US twin study found that men with same-sex orientation were much more likely to have attempted suicide, even after controlling for depression and substance abuse. Here's the crucial point: these alarming health disparities persist even in socially accepting environments like Canada, undercutting the claim that stigma alone causes the poor outcomes. Why? Because they're living against their design. They're trying to force their bodies and souls into patterns God never intended. Romans 1:27 warns they would receive "in themselves the due penalty for their error." This isn't just about eternal judgment; they're receiving penalties in real time through destroyed health. More Domestic Abuse Here's something the media won't tell you: domestic violence is notably higher in same-sex couples. The Gay and Lesbian Medical Association itself recognized this "hidden epidemic." * 37% of lesbians have been physically abused as adults or children * 32% had been raped or sexually assaulted, often by their partners Think about that. We're talking about two people in a relationship, and their own partner is sexually or physically abusing them at these rates. Gay male relationships also experience significant domestic violence, but notably lesbian couples have the highest rates of all. Remember earlier when we learned that single mothers had higher abuse rates? Now put two women together without the balancing the influence of a male presence. The abuse rates skyrocket. It's taking one of the worst situations (a woman not tied to a man in marriage) and doubling it. Shorter Relationships, More Cheating Homosexual relationships, particularly male partnerships, tend to be shorter-lived and less monogamous than heterosexual marriages. Gay author Andrew Sullivan himself noted that male couples are more likely to accept "extramarital outlets." The data backs this up: * 79% of heterosexual married couples valued complete sexual fidelity * 79% of lesbian couples valued complete sexual fidelity * Only 50% of gay male couples valued fidelity Think about it. Men already struggle with lust as visual creatures. Without the balancing influence of a female partner, you put two men together with those same struggles. Of course infidelity rates explode. They're both fighting the same temptations with no complementary influence. What Happens to the Children This is where it gets heartbreaking. These children didn't ask for this. Biology matters. Children fare best when raised by their married biological mother and father. Any deviation from this structure introduces risks. You cannot go to any intellectually rigorous institution and find data with a different conclusion. Children need their biological mother and father. End of story. Same-sex parenting arrangements deprive a child of either a father or a mother. Two lesbians raising a son cannot provide a male role model. Two gay men raising a daughter cannot provide the unique nurture of a mother. The Devastating Statistics According to the Regnerus study, children of lesbian mothers or gay fathers were: * 3–4x more likely to grow up on welfare (59–69% vs 17%) * More likely to have lower educational achievement * More likely to report depression * More likely to have been arrested * Rated their childhood family life as less secure Alarmingly, daughters of homosexual parents reported far more sexual partners in adulthood and were much more likely to identify as non-heterosexual themselves. Why? Because of the instability. The Regnerus study found that only 2 out of 248 children with a gay parent had lived with that parent and their same-sex partner from birth to age 18. It's a revolving door of relationships and partners. 10X The Sexual Abuse Perhaps most disturbing: 23% of those with lesbian mothers reported having been touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver during childhood, versus only 2% of those with an intact biological family. That's a 10x increase in child sexual abuse. When your entire outlook on sexual relations is scattered by habitual sexual sin, when you've already rejected God's design for sexuality, why wouldn't that deviation extend to other areas, including age? Jesus takes children seriously. Why don’t we? "Whoever causes one of these little ones to stumble, it would be better for him to have a millstone hung around his neck and be drowned" Matthew 18:6 Fertility & Fatherlessness When marriage is redefined as an emotional union of any two adults, it sends the cultural message that children are optional and procreation is unrelated to marriage. Countries leading in same-sex marriage (Netherlands, Sweden, Canada) also suffer some of the lowest fertility rates in the world, well below replacement level. We already have a fertility crisis from abortion. Add in gay couples who biologically cannot have children, and society accelerates toward collapse. To make it worse, if society says two women can raise children just as well as a mother and father, then a man might more easily rationalize: "My kids don't really need me. Their mom can do the job or find someone else." Same-sex marriage institutionalizes the idea that children don't need both a mom and dad, further eroding paternal commitment even in heterosexual contexts. The Propaganda Machine <10% of the US population has historically identified as LGBT, yet close to half the country supports LGBT policies. Why? Elite money and propaganda have been shoving this down our throats for 50 years. A moral truth held for millennia (marriage is between a man and a woman) was labeled bigotry overnight. Those who dissent face legal jeopardy. If you don't want to provide services celebrating this lifestyle, you're labeled a bigot who deserves to be destroyed. Joy Pullmann summarizes it perfectly in her book False Flag: "Sexual Marxism is not love. It's hatred. It's hatred of fatherhood and motherhood, children, and all natural human connections. Without family, people go insane. They are only fit for mental institutions. It's no coincidence that's what our nation's streets increasingly resemble." She's right. We started with liberating women, which alone could destroy a nation. Then we progressed to same-sex couples and sodomy. The bad fruit is visible everywhere: health crises, abuse epidemics, mental illness, destroyed children, societal collapse. Even secular studies and LGBT-authored reports acknowledge many of these facts. This isn't disputed. They can see it too. Yet increasing societal acceptance hasn't eliminated these problems; it's spread them. When you keep telling people sin is okay, they will find more creative ways to sin. 3. THE CONSEQUENCES OF TRANSGENDERISM We've traced the downward spiral. First, we "liberated" women from God's design for the family. Then we normalized sodomy, pretending two men or two women could replace a mother and father. Now comes the inevitable conclusion: If gender roles don't matter, if sexual distinctions are just preferences, then why should gender itself be fixed? Let's define terms. Transgenderism refers to identifying or living as a gender different from your biological sex. We're talking about chromosomes here: XX, XY. Your actual, God-given gender. Not just switching to the opposite sex either. People now claim to be different species, multiple genders, no gender at all. The rebellion has no limits. Before we dive into the devastating statistics, I need to address two objections people always raise: Objection 1: "These stats don’t necessarily mean all of these issues are inherently because someone is transgender, it could also be external factors." Because we already know the biological family is what makes humanity flourish, any deviation from that will always cause the same issues. Children need their biological mother and father. Period. Any deviation from this causes harm. So when Dad decides he's now "Mom," it doesn't matter if society is accepting. The fundamental structure God designed has been shattered. All of the data I’ll share can be traced back to rejecting God’s normal order in family, marriage, parenting, childhood, etc. Objection 2: "It's all due to discrimination. If we were just ‘nicer’ to trans people, the problems would disappear." This is wrong for multiple reasons. First, the data shows problems persist even in accepting environments. Second, God uses all means to bring judgment, including societal rejection. When someone feels like the "odd one out" for denying reality, that discomfort is part of God's mercy, warning them to turn back. Whether consequences come from biology breaking down or society rejecting delusion, God is sovereign over both. He's given us up as a nation, and these are the fruits. Marriages Destroyed First off, only around half of romantic relationships survive through a partner's gender transition. Think about why. You're a woman who married a man. That man, his masculinity, his role as husband and father, that's part of who you married. When he decides he's now a woman, he's becoming a different person entirely. The person you made a covenant with before God is essentially abandoning their identity. Even if the marriage doesn't end in divorce, it faces breakup, loneliness, and relational conflict. Why? Because one spouse has placed a massive psychological burden on the family so they can chase a delusion. Americans think individualistically: "I can do what I want as long as I have my career, my money, my family." There's no concept of ties, responsibilities, duties that come with being a husband or father. People think we're all just interchangeable units that come together for fun. That's not reality. As a man, I have specific responsibilities as a husband and father. If I "transitioned" to a woman, I couldn't just change my responsibilities. That's not how God designed it. When Dad becomes "Mom," you don't have two moms. You have a broken family structure that mirrors the homosexual dysfunction we covered in Chapter 2. All those abuse statistics, mental health crises, and developmental problems? They're back, but worse. Children Becoming Infertile Research shows that roughly 80% of pre-puberty children with gender dysphoria eventually desist, meaning they stop identifying as transgender by adulthood. In one study, 61% had reconciled with their birth sex. Let that sink in. The vast majority of kids who think they're transgender at age 8, 10, 12, or 14 grow out of it. Yet what are parents doing? Taking their children to doctors to mutilate their genitals. Putting them on puberty blockers. Permanently altering their bodies for what is overwhelmingly likely to be a phase. These drugs pause normal development, but studies show they cause loss of bone density during crucial growth years. Teen patients on blockers had bone density scores below average, with the longest users showing the worst outcomes. Weaker bones, higher fracture risk, and unknown long-term effects on development. Worse, puberty blockers followed by cross-sex hormones may prevent normal maturation of sperm or eggs, effectively sterilizing the patient. We're talking about 11 and 12-year-olds being made infertile because they said they felt like the opposite sex. These are weighty consequences for adolescents, many of whom cannot grasp the impact on their future ability to have children. Critics correctly argue that children cannot give truly informed consent for treatments that sterilize them and impair their physical development. Higher Rates of Prostitution & 100X HIV Due to discrimination and employment difficulties, roughly 13% of transgender respondents reported engaging in sex work. Transgender women (male to female) are twice as likely as transgender men to have done sex work. In some international studies, 24–75% of trans women reported involvement in the sex industry. Even as fake women, biological men transitioning to female can't escape the male disposition toward sexuality. They're still twice as likely to enter sex work compared to women transitioning to men. The biological differences between men and women persist even through the delusion. Transgender sex workers face especially high rates of HIV infection and physical assault. A CDC survey of 1,600 transgender women in seven major US cities found that 42% tested positive for HIV. Compare that to 0.3–0.4% in the general population. That's over 100 times higher. 19X Death by Suicide The 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey (USTS) is the largest survey examining the experiences of transgender people in the United States, with 27,715 respondents. The findings were: * 39% of transgender respondents experienced serious psychological distress in the past month (vs. 5% general population) * 40% have attempted suicide in their lifetime (vs. 4% general population) A landmark long-term study in Sweden tracked all transgender persons who had sex-reassignment surgery in the country over several decades and found: * Post-surgery transgender individuals are 19 times more likely to die by suicide * Trans people are nearly 5 times more at risk of suicide attempts * Trans people are almost 3 times more at risk of psychiatric hospitalization When you deny the gender God gave you, when you rebel against something so fundamental it stares you in the face every day, it's hard to have a foundation for hope. You're saying to God, "I know better than you. I'll be my own god." This spiral devastates the transgender community. Mental health issues lead to transition. Post-transition brings new problems. Regret sets in. But they're still denying God, so they have no foundation for hope. Despair deepens until suicide seems like the only escape. Cutting Up the Body A Dutch study examining five decades of data found transgender women (males on estrogen) had 1.8 times the mortality rate of normal men and 2.8 times that of women. They died at higher rates from cardiovascular disease, blood clots, lung cancer, HIV, and suicide. Despite 50 years of medical advances and massively increased social acceptance, mortality rates haven't improved. The problems are inherent to fighting against biology. The surgeries are horrifically complex with astronomical complication rates: * Phalloplasty (creating a penis for women): 76% of patients experience complications. Over one-third develop urethral fistulas. About a quarter get urethral strictures. Multiple follow-up surgeries are common. * Vaginoplasty (penile inversion): notable complication rates include wounds coming apart, narrowing requiring dilation, and functional issues needing corrective procedures. These aren't simple operations. They're complex attempts to remake what God designed, and the body fights back. Chronic pain, infection, difficulty with urination, sexual dysfunction - the list goes on. The Full Picture Let's sum up what transgenderism accomplishes: * Destroys marriages * Destroys parenting relationships * Confuses and harms children * Has an 80% regret rate in youth * Destroys fertility * Encourages prostitution and sex trafficking * Causes HIV rates over 100x normal * Results in astronomical suicide rates * Requires complex surgeries with majority complication rates * Demands lifelong hormone dependence * Reduces life expectancy It’s like God is saying: "You want to deny my design? You want to be your own god? Try it. See how it works." 4. THE CONSEQUENCES OF IVF & SURROGACY Now we arrive at the inevitable conclusion: if family structure doesn't matter, if sexual boundaries are meaningless, if even biological sex is optional, then why should children come from families at all? Welcome to the world of IVF and surrogacy, where children are manufactured, frozen, bought, and sold like commodities. Where the adult desire for offspring trumps the child's need for their biological parents. Where we've turned procreation into a business transaction. Definitions IVF (In Vitro Fertilization): A medical procedure where eggs are fertilized by sperm outside the body, in a lab. The resulting embryo (a human being, not a potential one) is then implanted into a woman's uterus. Surrogacy: An arrangement where another woman carries and delivers a baby for someone else. Variations of surrogacy: * Traditional surrogacy: The surrogate provides the egg, making her the biological mother * Gestational surrogacy: An embryo created via IVF is implanted into a surrogate who has no genetic link to the baby The Entitlement Complex All IVF & surrogacy arrangements flow from the same poisoned well: the belief that adults are entitled to children. God gives us the natural desire for children, especially the women who bear them. That's normal and good. But when natural barriers arise (infertility in a heterosexual couple, or the obvious barrier in homosexual couples), we see an underlying thread of entitlement emerge. Just because God's design includes the command to be fruitful and multiply doesn't mean you can circumvent His sovereignty when He closes the womb. You can't go around God to fulfill His commands on your own terms. Here's Brian, a child of surrogacy, reflecting on his experience: "I don't care why my parents did this. It looks to me like I was bought and sold. You can dress it up with as many pretty words as you want, but the fact is that someone contracted you to make a child, give up your parental rights, and hand over your flesh and blood child. When you exchange money for something, it's called a commodity. Babies are not commodities. They're human beings." Brian captures it perfectly. We've taken the glory of a child being born to parents who will raise them in God's natural order, and we've turned it into a sterile transaction. So, let’s go through all of the different combinations and scenarios where these transactions occur. Scenario 1: The Infertile Christian Couple A husband and wife, perhaps even Bible-believing Christians who want to fulfill God's mandate to fill the earth. They're infertile. What are their options? They could adopt. They could pursue legitimate medical solutions if there's an identifiable, fixable problem. But here's the key: God gives children. Period. It doesn't matter what natural means He uses to give them or block them. The blockage might even be a judgment, or discipline, for a time. Ultimately, God is sovereign. Scripture is full of barren women crying out for children. What's the consistent message? God opened the womb. God gave the child. Not technology, not human ingenuity. God. Scenario 2: The IVF Route When couples choose IVF, here's what they're actually choosing: * Mass incarceration of children: About 1.5 million embryos are currently frozen in the United States. Human beings suspended in liquid nitrogen. * Mass murder: The CDC reports that only 2.3% of IVF embryos result in live birth. That means 97% die during freezing, thawing, implantation, or early development. * Eugenics in practice: The IVF industry grades embryos. If they don't meet certain criteria, they're discarded. Killed because they might have Down syndrome or aren't “perfect.” * Even “safe” IVF is deadly: Some argue for using only one embryo (not common). But even then, you're intentionally putting your child in extreme danger for your own desires. This is essentially abortion with a scientific wrapper that makes people feel justified. Scenario 3: Two Dads and a Surrogate With two dads, you need: * Sperm from one dad * An egg from a female donor * A surrogate to carry the baby The result? A child with at most 50% relation to one dad, 0% to the other, and a complete absence of a mother. Katie Faust puts it beautifully: "When a child is born, this is supposed to be the day they meet the mother they already love. Newborns are put on their mother's chest because we are igniting the existing bond that is already present. The mother's voice, smell, and characteristics soothe the baby. Exclusively the mother herself lowers the baby's cortisol levels. Not strangers, not even the child's father can do this." When a surrogate hands over that baby for money, trauma is immediate and lasting. Scenario 4: Two Moms and Missing Fathers With lesbian couples, you might have: * Sperm from a male stranger * IVF using one mom's egg * Either mom or a surrogate carrying the baby This fragments motherhood into three pieces: genetic, gestational, and social. God designed them to be one. Heather Barwick, raised by two moms, shares her experience: "I grew up surrounded by women who said they didn't need or want a man. Yet, as a little girl, I so desperately wanted a daddy. It is a strange and confusing thing to walk around with this deep-down unquenchable ache for a father, for a man, in a community that says that men are unnecessary." The truth can be suppressed but not destroyed. Children long for their father and mother - not substitutes, not social arrangements, but their own parents. The Marxist Endgame The biblical model is clear: hierarchy, family ties, responsibilities, connections, community, nations. Father as head of household, mother, children. The Marxist model seeks to flatten everything. Make everyone interchangeable. The result? * Women's liberation → destroyed families * Homosexuality → destroyed sexuality * Transgenderism → destroyed identity * IVF/Surrogacy → destroyed procreation The endgame? No family ties at all. Every child manufactured and distributed by the state or market. No biological connections. Just interchangeable units in the machine. 5. THE CONSEQUENCES OF MURDERING CHILDREN VIA ABORTION We've traced the descent step by step. First, we "liberated" women from their God-given roles. Then we normalized sodomy. Next, we pretended gender itself was changeable. After that, we turned children into manufactured commodities. Now we arrive at the inevitable conclusion: disposable children. When you've destroyed every aspect of God's design for family, sexuality, and procreation, what's left? Kill the children who survive all your other rebellions. Murder the ones you couldn't prevent through your perversions. Sacrifice the inconvenient reminders that actions have consequences. I've done extensive work on abortion specifically. During last year's election season, I focused on it for three to four months straight. But for this series, I want to stay on theme: What are the consequences? What happens when a nation commits child sacrifice on an industrial scale? The Mental Health Apocalypse A 2011 meta-analysis in the British Journal of Psychiatry found that women who had undergone induced abortion experienced an 81% increased risk of developing mental health problems compared to women with no abortion history. This analysis of 22 studies covering over 160,000 women suggested that nearly 10% of all mental health problems in the population were attributable to abortion. Think about that. In a group of 160,000 women, one in ten mental health issues could be directly traced to abortion. That was the only factor that could explain the problem. The issues include anxiety, depression, and substance abuse. When you kill your child, whether you try to rationalize it or not, regret follows. This isn't like other mistakes we make in daily life that we can forget. This cuts deeper. There's forgiveness in Jesus Christ. If you've had an abortion and don't know Jesus, there's forgiveness and reconciliation available. But if you continue to rebel against God, there will be regret over your sin. No matter how young the mother, no matter how crazy the situation, at bottom, women still have the natural desire for children. As depraved as some might become, it's still in their bones. There's always going to be a lingering, deep regret that bubbles up because they intentionally discarded the life of their own child. If this really was just "a woman's choice," if there were no problems, if "when life begins" was just a religious question, then this should be a happy day. "Hey, I don't need to be a mom right now!" (Even though she already is one) But the regret proves we all know that's nonsense. We know what we're really doing. If we didn't, if it really was just a clump of cells or a simple procedure, there wouldn't be this regret. The Suicide Epidemic The same 2011 meta-analysis reported that women with a history of abortion were 4 times more likely to die by suicide than women without abortion history. Let that sink in. If Woman A has had at least one abortion and Woman B has never had one, Woman A is 400% more likely to commit suicide. Additionally, 34% of suicides among post-abortive women could be associated with their abortion experience. A third of all suicides among women who've had abortions are directly linked to that decision. Suicidal behavior and substance abuse showed the strongest correlations. Just like with the transgender situation we covered, when you have no hope, no Christ, nowhere to turn, suicide becomes your final "hope." PTSD Symptoms We usually think of PTSD in terms of military service or extreme violence. But a 2010 study in the Journal of Pregnancy found that 52% of women who had early abortions met criteria for PTSD at some point afterward. For late-term abortions (after 20 weeks), 67% met PTSD criteria. Symptoms include nightmares, flashbacks, trouble sleeping, and hyperarousal. A 2004 US study reported that 65% of women experienced some PTSD-like symptoms after abortion, with risk heightened when women felt pressured, ambivalent, or had later-term procedures. So far, we have women who get abortions (legally, whether pressured or not, even if brainwashed by media that it's "just a procedure") and afterward: * Become depressed * Become suicidal * Suffer PTSD symptoms That alone should be enough. If abortion clinics told women these risks beforehand (which they don't, because they want your money), many might reconsider. Think about pharmaceutical ads: "Here's the magic pill that cures this disease!" What do they always say at the end? "May cause death." They legally must disclose risks and get consent. They don't do that with abortion. If they told women these statistics, many would have second thoughts. But it gets worse. Cursing Your Future Children A 2009 meta-analysis found that women with one prior abortion had a 35% higher risk of preterm birth. If a woman has an abortion, then years later wants a baby, she has a 35% higher chance of that baby being born before 37 weeks. The risk nearly doubled (93% risk) for women with multiple abortions. And by the way, multiple abortions are increasingly common, especially with the mass distribution of the abortion pill making it very easy to kill your child. Some analyses estimate that 31% of premature babies in NICUs are born to mothers whose only known risk factor was a prior abortion. Walk into a NICU with 30 babies. Ten of them are there because their mother had an abortion. That's the only identifiable risk factor. Annually, US hospitalization costs for abortion-related prematurity exceed $1.2 billion. They're profiting from this destruction. The mechanisms include cervical trauma from dilation, uterine scarring or inflammation, and higher risks with surgical abortions. Believe it or not, when you're pregnant with a baby in your womb, God has a particular process that He designed. If you interrupt it with surgical tools halfway through, you curse yourself biologically. Your future babies will likely be premature. Abortion = More Breast Cancer A 1994 study in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute reported that abortion increased breast cancer risk by 50% before age 45. How many abortions are we having every year? Over a million documented ones, and we can't even track the abortion pills taken. It's well over a million annually. The highest risk groups were: * Teen abortions: 150% increased breast cancer risk * First abortion after age 30: Double the risk * Teen abortion plus family history of breast cancer: Nearly 100% increased risk of developing breast cancer by mid-40s A 2014 Chinese review confirmed a dose-response relationship: * One abortion: 44% increased breast cancer risk * Two abortions: 76% increased risk * Three abortions: Even higher Having multiple abortions is incredibly common. You have almost a 50% chance of getting breast cancer before age 45 after just one abortion. They won't tell you that at the clinic. The explanation? Abortion interrupts breast cell differentiation, leaving vulnerable, undifferentiated cells exposed to cancer risk. When you interrupt the natural process of pregnancy, all the interconnected systems break down. Now What? I hope by now you see the point I've been making throughout this series; We live in God's universe. People hear that and say: "We're just evolved animals from the Big Bang, we make up our own ethics, enough of your religious nonsense Joe!” But that doesn't coincide with reality. Our culture says all these things are good: * Women's liberation? Good! * LGBT? Celebrate it! * Transgenderism? No problem! * Manufacturing children? Sure! * Killing unwanted children? Your choice! If these really weren't problems…if they weren't going against divine design, we wouldn't see all of these consequences. God’s Design for Family The man is head of household, loving his wife sacrificially, protecting and providing. Wives submitting to husbands as we all submit to God, being homemakers (not 1950’s housewives, nor working for a corporation), raising children, leading in childbearing. Together as a family, bringing everyone up in the knowledge of the Lord. God’s Design for Relationships God made men and women distinct and different. They go together specifically. Screw up that relationship, and consequences flow. Gender Reality God made you male or female. You can't change your gender. Children as Gifts You're supposed to have children with your spouse. If you can't, pray to God. Don't circumvent Him with IVF, freezing embryos, or surrogacy. That's against His design. Life is Sacred If you have sex and conceive a child, but selfishly don't want that child, tough. Killing them is murder, and God sees it. The Choice Before Us America is falling. As I finish up editing this, it's been 2 weeks since Charlie Kirk’s assassination attempt. We're starkly divided between good and evil in our country, and people are waking up. Many of you listening might not be Christians. Maybe you're unsure, maybe you're atheist. Whatever your belief system is, you can't deny the reality in front of you. All the leftist principles running through America lead to: * Death * Mental illness * Suicide * Cancer * Children being abused * Children becoming criminals * Societal breakdown When you follow God's way in all these areas, mankind flourishes: * Lifespans increase * Mental health improves * Children are born and raised well * Society flows like water This is the most powerful testimony that Christianity is true. If you're not a Christian, go read your Bible [https://www.esv.org/John+1/]. God made the world. Deep down, when your head hits your pillow at night, you know this. You know God exists and made everything. But instead of bowing the knee and following Him, we disobey him because WE want control. Every disobedience heaps judgment on our heads. Every lie, every lustful look (which Jesus says is adultery in the heart), every selfish outburst…These "little" things we think are normal? Each one is active rebellion against God. Judgment is coming. God will judge every work and secret thing we've done, whether good or evil. The judgment for the wicked who won't bow the knee is hell: being tormented day and night forever and ever. he also will drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night...” Revelation 14:10–11 You might think that's harsh. But tonight when you go to bed, think about never escaping God's judgment. How horrible that would be. But here's the good news: Hell isn’t the only thing that lasts forever. How do you escape the judgement to come? You have to bow the knee and have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Turn to God in remorse and plead for forgiveness. Two thousand years ago, Jesus Christ came as both man and God. He lived a perfect life, died on a cross, and rose from the dead. God poured out all His wrath on Jesus instead of on his people. If you turn to Jesus in faith, acknowledge Him as Lord, and follow Him because He first loved you, God won't put that judgment on you. Jesus’s death on the cross will be the payment for your sin. Now Christ's perfect righteousness gets applied to you. You're good, and you'll live with God forever instead of going to Hell. While you await your life in eternity, you’ll strive to do good things on earth, not so you get into heaven, but because you love the God that saved you. If that's news to you, think about it. Read your Bible. Find a local church. Message me. The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil Ecclesiastes 12:13–14 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.repentlabs.com/subscribe [https://www.repentlabs.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]

The Lie That Killed 70 Million People

If there is one lie responsible for more innocent blood in the past 50 years, it’s this; the baby in a mothers womb is just a clump of cells. Its a fetus. We care about real, living humans, but those embryos aren’t real people yet! This lie, who’s origin resides in the deepest pits of Hell, has justified nationally sanctioned child sacrifice, what we moderns call “abortion.” This child sacrifice is no different in spirit as was the rituals of the ancient Canaanites. These tribes would place their newborn baby on a molten statue, hoping that this false god would bless them in return. The child would be burned alive. God even says this in the book of Jeremiah: “…and because they have filled this place with the blood of innocents, and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or decree, nor did it come into my mind” The scene was so horrific, that the tribe would play loud drums to drown out the cries of the helpless babies burning on the scorched hands of the Moloch statue. Legend has it, if you perk your ear up to the abortionists door, you can still hear the drums of Canaan in the distance All of this evil, resting upon the shoulders of one single lie; human life does not begin at fertilization. It’s time to execute this ideology without pity. To do anything less would be ignoring the cries of the dead children who have been sacrificed in our country. What We’ll Cover * The Non-Existent Debate on Life's Beginning * Scientific Evidence [https://repentance.notion.site/Life-Begins-at-Conception-1385f69a233d80ae8158f398f950e39a?pvs=4] for Life Beginning at Conception * The Nature of Human Value * ‘Personhood’ and Its Absurd Implications Repent Labs is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.repentlabs.com/subscribe [https://www.repentlabs.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]

Darwin's Fairytale: A Thorough Refutation of Evolution & Atheism

Introduction Many atheists claim that evolution is a proven scientific fact. If you disagree, they usually laugh at you. You’re seen as one of those Bible thumpers who believes Noah and the arc, talking donkeys, and resurrected men really existed. “They didn’t teach you this in high school?” they’ll mock. “Are you one of those anti-vax home schoolers with social issues who was taught about a sky daddy?” Because of comments like these, many Christians are very fearful of the theory of evolution. Heck, the Bible is clear that all creatures in creation were made in 6 literal days, but secular scientists who are “smarter than us” are saying otherwise. What do we do? In fact, some Christians are so terrified of the prospect of disagreeing with mainstream science, they run as fast as they can towards a figurative interpretation of Genesis to play both sides. “Maybe it wasn’t literally 6 days” “Maybe there’s a gap of time between the beginning and creation” “Maybe the first few chapters of Genesis are just figurative, a sort of “mytho-history” Most of these Christians trust scientists so much, they consider their work as an extension of God’s revelation. Some swallow the “14-billion year old universe” pill & “65 million year old dinosaur fossils” without a second thought. The evolutionary story is the bedrock for modern atheism. What once might have seemed to be a ridiculous worldview, now appears to finally have a cosmetic of respectability. If we concede to some of these claims, we are also conceding that the Bible might be wrong? But what if I told you that evolution wasn’t a proven scientific fact? What if I told you that evolution wasn’t even a good theory? What if I told you that evolution was such a bad theory, that if an 8th grader presented it for his final project, he would get expelled from school for how irrational it was. After a closer look, the theory of evolution is found to be nothing more than a fairy tale. Religiously motivated scientists simply rush to defend it so that it maintains a veneer of credibility. Enough is enough. Christians have been beat down long enough with this theory. We have not boldly fought this dragon at all, in fact we’ve put our weapons down altogether with a hand-waive. In this piece, I’m going to show you that given the raw observable scientific evidence, coupled with God’s word, the theory of evolution is nothing more than an adult fairy tale that helps unbelievers sleep at night by suppressing the truth that they already know deep down; God’s righteous judgement will be revealed. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse…Claiming to be wise, they became fools… Romans 1:18–22 Table of Contents * The Religion of Evolution * Big Bang Billions-of-Years Nonsense * 2,000 Zeros Between Life & Non-Life * The True Terror of the Fossil Record * Dinosaurs Less Than 10,000 Years Old * Sex for No Reason * Natural Selection Kidnapped * The Death of Atheism Chapter 1 - The Religion of Evolution Evolution Defined First off, let’s define our terms. The evolution I’m talking about is what most call macro-evolution. This is the view that one species of animal transforms completely into another. Imagine a dinosaur turning into a bird over millions of years in order to survive. That’s what I’m talking about. We are not talking about micro-evolution. Micro-evolution is when there’s a change of form or function within a species. Imagine a species of bird gets a sharper beak based on having kids with sharp beaks, that would be micro-evolution. Micro-evolution is just what happens when some species of animals have more kids. But what about macro-evolution? From Fish to Philosopher When we talk evolution, most people think of Charles Darwin. But evolution did not come from Darwin, it was already present in ancient Greek philosophy. Anaximander, one of the earliest ionian philosophers was an evolutionist. “For Anaximander (611 - 546 B. C. E) believed the world had arisen from an undifferentiated, indeterminate substance, the apeiron. The Earth, which had coalesced out of the apeiron, had been covered in water at one stage, with plants and animals arising from mud. Humans were not present at the earliest stages; they arose from fish…” Evolution was, and always has been, a philosophy, not a scientific theory. Nobody observed something in nature scientifically and said “That’s it, its gotta be evolution!” The truth is, every human from birth understands, without question, that God created the universe. We are without excuse: 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. With Darwin’s work coming to a finish, later scientists had to work day and night to give the theory a cosmetic of respectability. If they could just make it look legit, they could go to bed at night telling themselves that God didn’t exist. Evidence? Do you remember science class when you were in high school? Do you remember some of the things that make a scientific theory a strong one? Well, firstly, you would need evidence, right? If I went to my teacher and said “I think germs don’t exist, its all just a lie”, would he take my word for it? Of course not, he would ask me for evidence. To the embarrassment of the evolutionists, there is no evidence for macro-evolution. It’s simple, we’ve never observed a species turn into another species. We will explore this deeper later, but let’s take the fossil record for example. Do we find evidence of gradual development of species? No, on the contrary we find: * Sudden appearance of a fully complex life-form (no simpler versions prior) * Stasis - that species stays the same form and doesn’t evolve or change. In fact, there’s no evidence for the other parts of evolution either (we’ll get to that). But that’s no fun is it? I thought we had something? I thought we had a way out of that whole “I have to obey God because he made me” thing. So what are the evolutionists to do if science can’t help them? Politics. One great example of evolution politics in high definition is the British natural history museum. In 1981, the museum created an exhibit around Darwin’s evolutionary theory. The label included in the text that it was "one possible explanation" for the origin of life, as well as "not strictly scientific because it has not been empirically demonstrated" Because of those 2 expressions, enough political pressure was produced that the museum had to remove any acknowledgement of the problems with Darwin’s theory. That’s right, they were bullied into shoving Darwin’s sacred religion into everyone’s brains, as if it were actually a proven scientific fact. So right off the bat, we’ve begun to see that the theory of evolution begins with the human desire to craft a natural explanation of origins, so that we can be justified in doing what we want without consequence. This is nothing new, in fact, Paul was dealing with this in the first century. 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. With that foundation laid, let’s begin to move onto the observable evidence for evolution and the atheistic worldview as a whole. We’ve got a billions of years old universe, Big Bangs, random life, dinosaurs & pointless mutations to deal with, so let’s get started. Chapter 2 - Big Bang Billions-of-Years Nonsense Going deeper into our journey, I’m going to follow a framework to help you understand the folly of evolution. I’m going to start at the beginning, and go through each step of evolution in order. At each leg of the journey, we can look back and see if evolution is still holding up. The first step of our journey is the Big Bang. Most evolutionists hold to the Big Bang theory, and couple that with the universe being 14 billion years old. However, in this chapter we’re going to see that the evidence points to a young universe, not a 14-billion year old one. Violating the 1st Law The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy can be converted from one form to another with the interaction of heat, work and internal energy, but it cannot be created nor destroyed, under any circumstances. Basically you can’t create energy, you can only use energy that is already there. So where did our universe come from? Well, in secular models, the #1 rule is, you cannot have a creator or any purpose behind the beginning of the universe. In other words, our universe must come from nothing. The problem with this model? You are violating the 1st law of thermodynamics at the largest scale at the beginning of your model. Not only is this theory absurd because it claims something came from nothing, it’s claiming that everything came from nothing. So the largest amount of energy in the history of the universe is created from nothing, but then for some reason, after that it’s impossible to do? Violating the 2nd Law The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that entropy always increases. Basically, hot things cool off. Imagine you walk into a room and a hot cup of coffee is on the table. How long has the coffee been there? Well, not long, since the coffee is still hot. To put it crudely, the hotter something is, the “younger” it is. Let’s hold onto that for a minute. The moon is not cool inside (yet), we actually see evidence of gas venting as well as recent volcanic deposits. This shows that the Moon has recent geological activity. If the moon was billions of years old, the moon should have cooled off long ago. Thomas Watters of the Smithsonian Institution said this: “The whole idea that a 4.6 billion-year-old rocky body like the moon has managed to stay hot enough in the interior and produce this network of faults just flies in the face of conventional wisdom.” But there’s more. Pluto is currently resurfacing (equivalent to volcanic activity), which means it is distributing material to even out its surface. But where is the source of energy for this? Pluto does not have tidal flexing going on. According to secular models, Pluto should be cold and dead. But yet, it’s geologically active. Alan Stern said “Finding that Pluto is geologically active after 4.5 billion years - there’s not big enough typeface to write that in. It’s unbelievable.” If the universe is thousands of years old, this is not a problem, but if its billions…it’s a huge problem. The Stars Are Hot Maybe the universe isn’t billions of years old, maybe its just eternal! Maybe it’s been here forever and we’re just floating in it! Well, stars have not cooled off. Could stars have been there…forever? Well no, if they were there forever, they would have cooled off or blew up forever ago. If the universe was present forever ago, stars would not be here. The fact that we see stars tells us that the universe is not eternally old. Well can new stars not form? Aside from the secular issues with this theory, star formation requires energy, of which there is a finite amount in our universe. If the universe had been there forever, there would no longer be energy for stars to form in the first place. So if we can see that the universe is not eternally old with the 2LOT, then what does that mean? The universe had a beginning. Many Christians actually endorse the Big Bang blindly because it’s one path to show the universe had a beginning. No one has to hold to the Big Bang model to prove the universe had a beginning. This is great news considering the model itself is infested with holes and errors. Want to prove the universe had a beginning? Do you see the sun during the day? Do you see the stars at night? Yes? There you go, the universe had a beginning. The Dilemma We must ask our secular friends, did the universe have a beginning? Well, how many answers do we have? * Yes, the Universe had a beginning * No, the Universe is eternal If you are trying to construct a secular (non-Christian) model of the history of the universe, where there is no creator, both answers violate the laws of thermodynamics. Yes, It Had a Beginning, with No Creator! If you hold that the universe had a beginning, and there was no creator, that means everything came from nothing. So what existed before the beginning? Well the answer has to be nothing, because if everything began, and there was something before that beginning, whatever began wasn’t really the beginning, because some other type of matter existed before it. So if you hold that the universe began in a secular model, you have to hold that before the universe, there was absolutely nothing. And then, for some reason, there was something. Before moving forward, I wanted to do a quick lesson on “nothing” just so we’re all on the same page. * Nothing can only create nothing * Nothing can do nothing * From nothing, comes…nothing Not only can you not go from nothing to everything, you can’t even go from nothing to something. People like Lawrence Krauss have made books claiming they have a theory about how a universe came from nothing. The problem is, they define nothing very differently than, well, what its definition is. Krauss even admits this problem at the beginning of his book. When Krauss says the word “nothing”, he really means the universe came from an empty vacuum of space permeated with quantum fields that were capable of producing particles. Well, that’s not nothing, is it? That’s what we layman people call “something.” No, It’s Eternal, with No Creator! The other choice is, that the universe is eternal, with no creator. As previously mentioned, the 2nd law of thermodynamics blows this theory out of the water. If the universe was eternal, we wouldn’t see stars. Think about this for a minute, there are very hot stars surrounded by cold space. The heat in the universe is still very uneven. However, the 2LOT shows us that the universe wants to even itself out equally. If the universe was eternal…all stars would have cooled off or blown up forever ago. Since the universe hasn’t done that yet, by definition, it couldn’t have been here forever. It would be like me bringing you to a freezing cold room that had 10, currently scolding hot coffee cups simmering and telling you “Oh these have been here forever” Some people argue the “Oscillating Universe” model. Basically, the theory states that there was the Big Bang, which expanded the universe. Then eventually, the universe will constrict in the opposite direction until it hits a single point. This process continues forever. This entire idea doesn’t work at the foundation. Thermodynamics shows us that, if you go from a Big Bang, and everything is expanding, and entropy is increasing… That means the later condition (expanded universe) had more entropy than its original condition (the bang). To go from where we are today (expanded), to a constricted universe, would require a reversal of entropy, or basically, time moving backward. This is not possible and violates thermodynamics. The universe is not eternal. No Options? Well, in secular models, a universe with a beginning is quite problematic. But even worse, an eternal universe doesn’t work either. With no secular options left, is there a third option? Yes: The universe had a beginning, but a supernatural creator (the Triune God of scripture) brought it into being. God is in control of space, time and matter, so he is not constrained to the laws of thermodynamics. This allows the initial creation to form without violating these laws. Any atheistic theories of the history of the universe are simply not allowed due to their repeated violation of the LOT. The Boltzmann Brain Paradox But let’s be generous for a minute. Let’s grant that the Big Bang happened just for a moment and see where it takes us. Using the 2LOT, we can calculate the probability of how matter and energy is arranged. * A low entropy system is less probable * A high entropy system is more probable So we can measure the entropy of a system, and that corresponds to the probability of that particular system actually existing. Guess which one of these options the universe has today? Low entropy With such low entropy, our universe is mathematically improbable. So even if something could create itself from nothing (which we already reviewed is impossible)… Our universe is still astronomically unlikely to be the result of a random unguided event like that. This is important for our discussion so hold onto that for a minute. Imagine someone came up to you and said “I was trying to think about where New York City came from, and I think I figured out how it came into existence. I think it popped into existence from nothing.” You reply “Cities don’t pop into existence from nothing” They reply “Well I think they can, I think it’s a great explanation” So to illustrate to your friend how silly the proposal is, you reply “NYC has buildings, cars, people, highways…you’re saying that the city with everything in it popped into existence. It would be much easier for, say, someone's wallet, complete with the leather back & credit cards to have popped into existence.” That is far more probable to have popped into existence vs the entire city…and even then, it’s still a ridiculous claim. So how do we apply this to the Big Bang? To put it simply, the Big Bang is so mathematically improbable based on the 2LOT, that it’s far more probable that the only thing that popped into existence is your brain. You are just a floating brain with the right molecules in place to make it feel like you actually had a childhood and are a complete human. Alan Guth, a cosmologist at MIT, pointed out that some calculations with this paradox result in an infinite number of free-floating brains for every normal brain, making it ‘infinitely unlikely for us to be normal brains’ This also holds true for the multiverse theory. If you grant infinite universes, you grant you’re a floating brain just by probability. The conclusion of the Big Bang, as it holds to its own standards, is that the universe doesn’t exist and that the Big Bang did not happen. Can you imagine bringing forward a theory about the history of the universe that, on its own standards, denies the existence of the universe? Chapter 3 - 2,000 Zeros Between Life & Non-Life Life from Non-Life Assuming that the Big Bang happened (which we know from this post [https://www.repentlabs.com/p/billions-of-years] and this post [https://www.repentlabs.com/p/big-bang-refuted] that it didn’t), the first step on our evolutionary journey is what’s called abiogenesis. “the original evolution of life of living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances” Basically, how did life generate from non-life? How did life appear randomly from no life at all? That’s a massive jump, especially in the chance universe that our secular friends live in. Well, Christians don’t have to lift a finger to refute this. Evolutionists' own colleagues don’t even buy it. The Math Problem We’re not just talking about Christians beating evolutionists over the head with their Bibles, but secular mathematicians who have serious issues with the theory of evolution. A number of Mathematicians in 1967 published their academic papers under the title Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution. These mathematicians are applying probability to the theory of evolution. Given a true random force (God is not behind it), there isn’t nearly enough time, even billions of years, for this to have happened. Here’s a quote from Eden Murray from one of the published books: “It is our contention, that if the word “random” is given a serious and crucial interpretation, from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible, and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws...” That’s devastating. Eden is saying, if we’re truly going to say that evolution came from random chance, we need to wait for new natural laws. How Many Zeros? Going further, here is what Michael Denton points out in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis To get one cell by chance would require at least 100 functional proteins to appear simultaneously in one place. The independent probability of any particular protein appearing is going to be hardly more than 10^-20. So…it’s a 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance that one protein appears out of nowhere. But to get one cell, we need 100 of those proteins to appear, simultaneously, all in the same place. If you gamble at Las Vegas and somebody offers you a probability of 1 in 10, those are bad odds. What about 1 in a 100? Well those are exceptionally bad odds. Let’s go even deeper, what about 1 in a 1,000? Surely you’d be mad to even touch that game. Denton pointed out that the maximum combined probability would be 1-in-10^2,000. 2,000 zeros. To show you how bad that is, I wrote it out below 1 in 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 chance And what would that achieve? One cell. “But Joe, if we DO get 1 cell, then evolution is complete right? Not at all, this is just for evolution to start. The Problem of Chirality Aside from our mathematician friends, there are many origin of life studies that aim to show life could have formed by itself, and without a creator. To do that, you need proteins, and to make proteins you need amino acids. The problem is, when you make amino acids in a laboratory, you run into the issue of chirality. Basically, amino acids can appear in left-handed, and right-handed forms. These are named based on the shape they make. The problem? If life spontaneously generated from a warm pond somewhere, it would be made from the amino acids in a non-living environment. But for life to form, amino acids are exclusively left-handed form. Yet, in a laboratory setting, making amino acids generates a mixture of left & right-handed forms. This does not support life. Now some researchers try to construct a “filtering” system that separates the left from the right-handed amino acids. That way, they can have an exclusive collection of left-handed amino acids to create life from. Well, when these filtering systems separate the amino acids, some of the left-handed amino acids will spontaneously change into the right-handed form. “In other words? You cannot generate life from non-life.” -The evidence An Obsolete View So, life coming from non-life isn’t looking too good. But this isn’t a new problem. In fact, abiogenesis is so unsupported, it’s classified as an obsolete view in many technical journals today. From The McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms “the obsolete concept that plant and animal life arise from nonliving organic matter,” From the Oxford Dictionary of Science “The development of living organisms from non-living matter, as in the supposed origin of life on Earth, or in the concept of spontaneous generation which was once held to account for the origin of life but which modern understanding of evolutionary processes has rendered outdated” When you reject God, you are left with absurdity. Things get so bad, that you become broccoli. Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?1 Cor 1:20 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition… Col 2:8 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools Romans 1:21–22 Chapter 5 - The True Terror of the Fossil Record Evolution in the Fossils? As we’ve seen…evolution can’t even start. Cosmologists and Chemists certainly can’t help the evolutionists here. But what about the fossil record? If the theory of evolution were true and there was a gradual change in lifeforms, the fossil record should show any number of connecting links between lifeforms. Well, does it? Nothing :/ Unfortunately for the evolutionist, the fossil record shows life happening abruptly and in complex forms. There’s also gaps between different types of lifeforms. There is also no fossil trace of an ape-like creature turning into a man. There have been many claimed missing links, but upon further observation, they are either man-made hoaxes, or misinterpreted chimp fossils. Well then, paleontologists would be the first people to give up the theory of evolution, right? If they know the fossil record, they couldn't possibly continue holding to evolution…right? Well a very prominent academic in evolution, Stephen Jay Gould, knew the fossil record very well. He knows it doesn't support Darwin’s theory. So in 1977, as a leading advocate of evolution, he wrote an article entitled Punctuated Equilibrium in the journal Paleobiology, volume 3, page 145. According to Gould, the fossil record doesn’t support evolution as interpreted in a gradualistic sense. But, since we just know evolution is true (👀), the fossil record must prove to us that evolution took place. According to Gould, when evolutionary change happens, it doesn’t happen gradually at all. It happens very fast, and then you have long periods of equilibrium (things staying the same). So we just so happened to only have hundreds of millions of fossils that were laid down during one of those nice equilibrium periods, and not one of those pesky punctuated evolutionary periods. Dr. Greg Bahnsen had this to say about Gould’s view: “That amounts to saying; The proof of my theory in the fossil record is that there would be no proof in the fossil record.” So…the Creation Account? The main problem with this view is that it turns into a creation account by natural means. Remember, if we assume this punctuated equilibrium is true, that means that: * There were different “periods” of evolution * These periods were all “very short” * These periods were powered by “creative energy and change” * There are ‘gaps’ in between these periods Well, the Genesis account [https://www.esv.org/Genesis+1/] already documents periods of creative bursts, separated by a gap of a day. The difference with this theory is that, instead of God’s infinite mind powering the creation, its just a random force. This is absurd because, we have to ask…what generic natural force is powering these random ‘bursts’ of evolutionary change? If the changes in evolution were random, we would expect that change to happen constantly over time, not in short bursts. To continue, Stephen Jay Gould explains why gradualistic evolution has been preferred: “The general preference that so many of us hold for gradualism is a metaphysical stance embedded in the history of western cultures. It is not a high-order empirical observation induced from the objective study of nature.” And moving further on page 147: "At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the 'official' position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record..." As stated previously, gradual evolution is a philosophy [https://www.repentlabs.com/p/evolution-religion], not a strict scientific theory. The fossil record simply confirms this. So if the fossil record doesn’t support gradual evolution, what does it confirm? What can we conclude based on the evidence? What is a Fossil? Well, what is a fossil? fossil the remains or impression of a prehistoric organism preserved in petrified form or as a mold or cast in rock. Basically, fossils are the remains of a once living creature found in rocks. When you see a dead deer on the side of the road, what will happen in the coming days and weeks? Will it fossilize? Well no, it’ll be eaten quickly by scavengers and bacteria. Nature will take its course. So why do we see billions of fossils all over the world, with many of them being well preserved? What could explain this? Rapid burial. If these animals were buried rapidly, their bodies would be preserved, out of reach from oxygen and burrowing animals. Fossilizing can happen very quickly, in fact, you can literally make a fossil at home [https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/how-are-fossils-formed/experiment-fast-formed-fossils/], today. Even evolutionists agree that the fossil record is mostly a history of catastrophe, not gradual development. However, as Rampino notes, geological history is now commonly understood to be marked by long periods of stability punctuated by major ecological changes that occur both episodically and rapidly, casting doubt on Darwin's theory that "most evolutionary change was accomplished very gradually by competition between organisms and by becoming better adapted to a relatively stable environment." 1. Marine Life So, what kind of fossils do we find in the fossil record? For one, we find marine fossils (sea creatures) in rock layers way above sea level all over the world. If these rock layers were created over thousands or millions of years, we wouldn’t expect to see sea creatures at this elevation. Something carried these marine creatures to this height, something that we certainly don’t see today. Dr. Andrew A. Snelling said this about the marine fossils These marine fossils are found haphazardly preserved in this limestone bed. The crinoids, for example, are found with their columnals (disks) totally separated from one another, while in life they are stacked on top of one another to make up their “stems.” Thus, these marine creatures were catastrophically destroyed and buried in this lime sediment. 2. Fossils in Action We also find fossils of animals who are in the middle of a very temporary state. Take for example the picture above. This is a documented fossil of a fish in the middle of eating another fish. If this fossil was laid down over a long period of time, it wouldn’t be found in this position. It would have already eaten the other fish by now. Something happened to this fish that was so quick & abrupt, there was no time for it to even finish its dinner. So What Happened? To recap, we know that fossils are evidence of a rapid burial. We find billions of fossils all over the globe, which points to a global event. We find marine fossils in elevations way above sea level, which means this global event carried them up there. And we even find fossils of animals in the middle of a very temporary state. The question is…what kind of global, cataclysmic event could have possibly buried this many animals, in such a short period of time, simultaneously, while having the strength & capability of throwing T-Rex’s around like chew toys? The Judgement of God It was the global flood, as detailed in the genesis account [https://www.esv.org/Genesis+6/]. About 4,300 years ago, God judged the entire world with a global flood due to the wickedness of humans. The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Genesis 6:5 God caused the fountains under the earth to break open with water, as well as torrential rain to pour down to create this flood condition. …on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened. And rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights. Genesis 7:11–12 Dr. Terry Mortenson explains more about what this was like: The language therefore clearly implies earth movements on the deep ocean floor as it broke open (i.e., earthquakes), which would trigger volcanic eruptions, and tsunamis, coupled with torrential global rain, all of which would result in unimaginable destruction. The global flood was a historic event that absolutely decimated the planet. The judgement of God was on full display against the rebellion of man. With the exception of Noah, his family, and the animals on the ark, no other land creature was saved. He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark. Genesis 7:23 Now What? This reminder of God’s judgement should bring us to our knees in humility. The same God that once judged the earth at the time of the flood, will execute a greater judgement by fire at the end of history. and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. 2 Peter 3:5–7 Chapter 6 - Dinosaurs Less Than 10,000 Years Old They Start ‘em Early It would be weird if you hadn’t already heard the “150 million years ago dinosaurs walked the planet” spiel by now. Most of us get this imported in our brain at an early age when we’re buying our first dino toys. These are big numbers…100’s of millions of years. Are dinosaurs really that old? Certainly if they were, that would support the evolutionary theory. Well I’m here to tell you that, no, they’re not. Dinosaurs have been kidnapped by the evolutionists to push their unsupported, pagan philosophy. Today we’re going to see that dinosaurs are quite young. How Old are Dinosaurs? How old are dinosaurs? Surprisingly enough, there is no label on fossils when we find them. Scientists can’t just run an experiment and then “Eureka! Its 70 million years old!” The age of dinosaurs is a historical science question. The problem is, evolutionists just assume the age of fossils by comparing the depth the bones were found with their assumptions about how old those rock layers are. To prove to you that these assumptions are incorrect, we’re going to take Mount St. Helens as an example. Mount St. Helens In 1980, Mount St. Helens erupted. Here’s a quick description of what it was like: As the land slid away, molten rock at temperatures reaching 1700° F (925° C) exploded water into steam and blasted out over the northern landscape. Within seconds, this blast cloud destroyed 200 square miles (515 km2) of forests—ripping up some areas and tossing the trees about in the sediment, blowing over other trees and stripping the leaves and limbs off those furthest away from the blast. The blast cloud spread out over the land at speeds over 650 mph (1,040 km/h). In 1992, just over 10 years after it’s eruption, a sample was taken on a lava dome at Mount St Helens. The dating method the researchers used was the potassium-argon method (widely used in geological circles). The laboratory was not told that the specimen was only 10 years old. You would think the results should at least come back as a very young age. Right? Well, they didn’t. The projected age using this method, of this 10 year old sample, ranged from 340,000 to 2.8 million years. If we can’t trust this method to date rocks of known age, why would we trust it with rocks of unknown age? DNA Decay Moving further, A study was done to determine how quickly DNA will decay in bone. They found that, even under the best possible conditions, DNA will only last at max about 10,000 years. Well…researchers found DNA in a dinosaur skull. The “supposed” age of the dinosaur by secular standards was 75,000,000 years old. If DNA can only last at max, 10,000 years…but the “age” of the dinosaur is 75,000,000, how is that possible? It’s possible because this dinosaur isn’t 75M years old. That number is a guess based off of evolutionist assumptions. The dinosaur was likely buried from the global flood a little over 4,000 years ago, which makes sense of the DNA found. Evan Saitta with the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago had this to say These organic materials... are understood to be among the least stable biomolecules over long periods of time and under the heat of deep burial during fossilization. However, it is the extreme age of the samples that is striking. This 75-million-year-old fossil is, at least, one or two orders of magnitude older than the expected preservation limits of DNA and proteins. Soft Tissue in a T-Rex Moving further, a researcher found red blood cells and soft tissue from a T-Rex femur. It’s literally still elastic. Could these last millions of years in these conditions? Of course not. Non-Existent Fossil Evidence We’re also told about the Dinosaur family tree like the one shown below. This is what the evolutionary storyline tries to portray. The White filling is where there is actual fossil evidence, the grey area is where there are evolutionist assumptions. What do you notice? There’s no evidence in the transitioning sections. If you remove all the grey, you simply get evidence for the creation account in genesis. With the presence of DNA in fossils, the fossil record itself, and the unreliable dating methods that evolutionists use, all the data confirms the biblical timeline, not the millions of years we are spoon fed from childhood. So why do evolutionists continue to push the Dinosaur story of millions of years? Because boy that would be convenient, wouldn’t it? The reality is, God made dinosaurs at the same time he made all of the other land animals. And as we learned last week, God also judged the world [https://open.substack.com/pub/repentlabs/p/fossils?r=jgvj9&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true] with water just over 4,000 years ago. This judgement was an image of the judgement to come, where all men will reap what they have sown. Chapter 7 - Sex for No Reason Bacteria Are Better On the theory of evolution, we’re told that lifeforms that are more adept to their environment survive, and those that are not as adept, die out. That means evolution is preferable to lifeforms who multiply the most. The more kids you have, the more likely you’ll last and survive in the environment you’re in. Well if that’s true, then why did lifeforms evolve beyond the bacterial stage? You see, bacteria multiply very quickly, through division. Elementary school children get bacteria to grow in their classroom, it’s not hard. And yet…there’s all of these animals we see that have very complicated ways of having children. They need to have sex in order to have babies. What’s the problem? Intercourse complicates having children. Instead of having thousands or millions of children like bacteria can, animals that require sex are now reduced down to a handful of kids. Why was that advantageous? The reality is, on evolution’s own terms, if lifeforms evolved into complex life solely on the basis for survival, evolution wouldn’t have happened. We would have just stayed bacteria forever. Useless Sex But let’s be generous, we don’t want to be too harsh here. Let’s just say that, for some reason, mutations started to happen and bacteria lifeforms began to evolve. And then let’s go further and say, somewhere along the line, they began to evolve with genatalia (sex organs). Question; what is the advantage of having sex organs that don’t function? Remember, these organs evolved gradually over time (otherwise, it’s just a creation account). For example, that means at one point, a male bacteria had partially created male genatalia, without anyway to use it to reproduce. Why? Why would bacteria keep on with this partially created male genatalia if it served no purpose. Until the whole sex system is in place and a male and female come together successfully…there’s no use for sex organs. Male & Female Madness But let’s keep going for a minute. Let’s say, for some reason, bacteria evolved with non-functioning versions of male and female genatalia. How long is a female human woman fertile for? Well usually around 40 years right? Let’s be generous and just say 100 years. We have 100 years for a woman to be able to get pregnant. Evolutionists want us to believe that in this narrow window of 100 years, a male AND a female had functioning genatalia, simultaneously, knew what to do with that genatalia, had intercourse, and successfully reproduced from it? And after that random miracle of mutation, they decided, for no other reason, to keep doing it? Do you know what we call ideas like these? Asinineextremely or utterly foolish or silly So evolutionists tell us that lifeforms that reproduce the most are the ones most adept to survive. But as we’ve seen, if this was true, we should never have evolved in the fist place. Chapter 8 - Natural Selection Kidnapped Natural Selection is Real Before we get too critical of our evolutionist friends, I want to remind you that natural selection is 100% true. “…Basically, natural selection is the principle that organisms that have traits well-suited to their environment tend to survive and reproduce in greater numbers than organisms with traits that are not well-suited to their environment. In extreme cases, the organisms that are less suited to their environment are driven to extinction.” Here's a fake example, imagine 2 types of dogs. One has short hair, one has long hair. These dogs live in a very cold environment, so naturally, the dog with the long hair genes survives longer, and the dog with short hair dies. The short hair dog has not left any children, since he died :( The long-haired dog however left many children, since he did survive. This is a genetic process that God built into his creation, which is responsible for the vast amount of diversity we see. But did you notice something in the example I gave? Both dogs were Dogs. They didn't transform into a new species of animal over thousands and millions of years. They immediately pass down genes to their dog children. Natural Selection Stolen Unfortunately, natural selection got kidnapped into the regime of gradual evolution. Using natural selection as a foundation, evolutionists claim that animals evolved based on their environment. Giraffes started with short necks, but then one awesome giraffe had a 10-foot neck because "why not", and that giraffe ate more food and survived. At the surface, this might actually make sense too, but the problem is, if the environment sucks, animals don't stick around for millions of years and change their bodies, they move. Those short-necked giraffes would have just found shorter trees. This is not only more practical, it's actually within the mental capacity of the animal. If giraffes can't even talk to me, why would I expect them to think "Gee wiz, I need to grow a longer neck" and then even crazier, actually grow longer necks on demand. Useless Organs Another thing we're told is that mutations (like long necks) "stick around" because they're advantageous for the animal. But, the theory of evolution also tells us that it was a gradual process over a long period of time. So...let's see how this works on the human heart. The human heart evolved over many years slowly and gradually...but the only reason the heart continued to evolve is because the earliest versions of it were still advantageous. Question...what's the advantage of a 1/3rd developed heart? What would a non-functioning heart do for you? How about lungs? What was the use of the 1/10th developed lungs vs the 1/5th developed lungs? This idea is ridiculous because all of the systems we observe in nature (including our own bodies) have very specific purposes. They are designed to do certain things. Many of these systems would be useless if they didn't have every single component functioning all in one shot. I highly recommend watching this amazing video about the 4D design of DNA. This is just one example of how impossible it would be to gradually develop a system as complex as this, via random mutation. Chapter 9 - The Death of Evolution Recap of What We've Learned So far in this series, we've learned that evolution is a religion, not a scientific theory. We then learned that the evidence confirms a young universe, not a 14-billion year old one. We also learned that even if we granted the Big Bang to be true, it wouldn’t have happened. After that, we found out that it was mathematically and chemically improbable to get life from non-life. After that, we took a look at the fossil record and saw that it doesn't confirm evolution, it confirms the judgement of God at the global flood. As if that wasn't enough, we took a look at dinosaurs and found out all of them are less than 10,000 years old, and that secular dating methods are based off of false assumptions. After that, we learned that if evolution were true, we should have never evolved sex organs. And then, we took a look at how natural selection was stolen to justify evolution. But, there’s still one more thing that needs to be addressed. Today, I’m going to assume that I’ve been wrong about everything so far. Seriously. I’m not joking. Let's Be Generous I’m going to wave the white flag and give Darwin his temporary victory. Let's say that every single step of the evolutionary philosophy is 100% true. Let's say that: * Once upon a time, there was disorder. * We don't know why, but that disorder became orderly. * This ordered matter was inorganic, and, for reasons we don't know, it became living matter. * Then, mysteriously and without explanation, this living matter which was made up of identical forms, began to diversify. * From these diversified forms, for reasons we cant explain, they became varied but unintelligent. * After this, the unintelligent life forms became intelligent and articulate, for reasons we do not know. * Once this was accomplished, the intelligent articulate lifeforms miraculously began to use language. * And of course from there, not that we have an explanation of course, the language using lifeforms, became moral men. So, if that’s what happened…that means that everything we see in the universe is just matter in motion. There are no supernatural forces in our universe. No God. No right and wrong. No meaning. Me and you? Stardust bumping into stardust. We're just a part of this great big universe that was here before us and will be here after us. You only live once, so live for yourself, find what makes you happy and don't let anyone stop you. Let's grant it. The Problem of Uniformity Our evolution friends love to tell us that they hold to “science” as their ultimate standard. They even mock Christians, saying we have “blind faith” and despise being rational. What’s interesting is…science itself RELIES on the universe being repeatable. Since the universe is consistent, we can observe things in nature, and make a general statement about how that thing acts all the time. If I drop a bowling ball and measure how fast it falls, and repeat it over and over again, I can confirm that gravity has a certain rate. That’s just good ole observable science. You would think if science relies on this principle, we should have a really, really good reason to trust it, shouldn’t we? Well…on the evolutionary view, there is no reason to trust that the universe is consistent. If everything is just matter in motion, there can be no transcendent order. There is nothing “above” matter on this worldview that would cause it to be consistent day in and day out. There can be no consistent laws, because consistency involves design and meaning, and there is no design and meaning on the evolutionary worldview. On the Christian worldview, God not only created the universe, but He also upholds it and manages it, every second of the day. "While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease."Genesis 8:22 "And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together."Colossians 1:17 "He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power."Hebrews 1:3 I can trust that the future will be like the past because God has promised it will be. But if you’re an atheist who holds to evolution as our origin story, the question is… Why do you? Why would you expect gravity to stay the same? Why would you brush your teeth assuming your toothpaste will come out of the tube the same way every time? Why, after burning your finger in a fire, would you avoid touching it again, assuming that fire is always hot? In fact, if evolution were true, everything is possible. There are no bounds as to what could happen at any second of the day. Most atheists who cling onto evolution point at Christians saying “You really believe a man rose from the dead? Donkey’s talking? Come on dude.” Well…on the Christian worldview, God spoke the universe into existence from nothing…I think he can handle raising a few people from the dead? The question I have for my atheist friends are…why do you have a problem with miracles? Every second of the day is a miracle on the evolutionary worldview. Nothing to something, something to life, life to intelligence…the amount of miracles that have already occurred is astronomical In fact, if you hold to the evolutionary view, why would you expect anything to be regular in the first place? You should look outside and say: “well this is peculiar, where’s the disorder and chaos?” The Problem of Mind But that’s just the first stop on our tour of the evolutionary universe. If everything is matter it motion, that also means that our "minds" are too. Your mind is reduced to your brain. Your brain is your mind. Let's say I’m chatting with one of my evolutionist friends, and they say this to me: "God doesn’t exist, we've gotten here from gradual evolution" Well, on their own worldview, they wouldn't have a reason to believe that, because that statement is just their brain fizzing atheistic chemicals. It's not an actual belief based on logic or rational thought, it’s just what their brain decided to spit out. It’s not their fault for saying those things, they couldn't help it. As Dr Greg Bahnsen put it: “...if atheism is true, there could be no reason to believe atheism is true...My brain just does what it does, and his brain just does what his does…” So basically, if evolution happened, and we live in an atheistic universe, all logic, thought, rationality, meaning, and everything that you think and speak about…is reduced to brain fizz. The Problem of Ethics But we’re not done yet, because there is yet another problem that I think cuts deeper: Ethics Ethics at its most basic level, is what we ought and ought not to do. I can murder 24 people, but should I? I can cheat on my spouse, but should I? These are ethical questions. Here’s the problem…if we're all just stardust, then who cares about ethics? Anyone can make an ethical claim like “Don’t do this” or “Do that”, but in a universe where everything is matter in motion…who cares? Those claims are all just opinion. I hate that I have to write this out…but I want to give you an example so this sticks with you. Let's say a man breaks into a family's home, kills the husband, rapes the Mom and beats the children in the basement before killing them too. What’s wrong with this home invasion scenario? Well, on the Christian worldview, this scene is absolutely horrible. All of those family members were made in the image of God and have value. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Genesis 1:27 Going further, we as humans are called to love one another. This man's actions are a direct violation to God's eternal law, and he deserves the death penalty. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image. Genesis 9:6 Even further, if he doesn’t repent, upon death he’ll spend eternity in Hell, where he will be tormented day and night forever and ever as a just punishment. …he also will drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night… Revelation 14:10–11 On the Christian worldview, ethics makes sense, and there is actual justice that is delivered; either to the law breaker in Hell, or on Jesus for those that believe in him. But what about our atheist friends who hold to evolution? Does a ‘matter-in-motion’ universe make sense of ethics? Let's ask Richard Dawkins, a consistent atheist: The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference. River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life So what's wrong with our home invasion scenario on the atheist worldview? Absolutely, nothing. If everything is matter in motion, there cannot be any absolute good or evil. The family in our example didn’t enjoy the home invasion, but you know what, our home invader did! These are merely 2 opinions pitted against each other, so we can’t really know which is right or wrong can we? Just 2 stardust piles bumping into each other, right? Even crazier? Hitler was an evolutionist. It was the evolutionary theory that propelled his philosophy. “Darwin viewed the “Caucasian” (white-skinned Europeans) as the dominant “race” in an evolutionary worldview. To many evolutionists at the time, mankind had evolved from ape-like creatures that had more hair, dark skin, dark eyes, etc. Therefore, more “evolved” meant less body hair, blond hair, blue eyes, etc.” Bodie Hodge Many atheists who hold to evolution are so disturbed by this, that they try to construct systems that can account for ethics while still holding to a naturalistic universe. However, all of these systems fail, and fail for 1 reason; they’re still living in God’s universe. The Death of Evolution The harsh truth is that, even if we grant that evolution happened, the Big bang, ape man, the whole shebang, and concede for a minute that God doesn’t exist…evolution still can’t hold up, because the entire system implodes on itself. Why do people still hold onto it then? If this worldview can’t stand on it’s own 2 feet, if it’s not true even when we grant it to be true, and the scientific evidence doesn’t confirm it but refutes it, you may be asking then why is it “The” theory of our day? Why do people get so emotional when you poke holes into evolution? Because evolution is what many people hold dear to their hearts, it’s their sacred religion. It’s a convenient escape from the reality of being responsible for our actions here on earth. “As we studied the natural world we always came up against a barrier that had written upon it, ‘no further exploration by order of Moses.’ Darwin gave us a way around the barrier.” Thomas Huxley When someone concedes that evolution doesn’t hold up, they have to concede that there is another explanation for the universe we see. And when they concede to that, they have to also concede that, they know deep down, Yahweh created the universe. And with that, they know deep down because of their conscience that Yahweh has a law, and that they have broken that law. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them… Romans 2:14–15 And if they concede that they have broken God’s eternal law, they also know, in some way, they deserve a punishment or judgement in response. And instead of facing the reality of God and bowing to him as Lord, unbelievers worship the creation (that God made) to ‘escape’. because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator… Romans 1:25 But…There’s Good News But here’s the good news. If you or someone you know is an atheist who holds to evolution…there is still time to repent. The problem humans have is that we have all broken God’s law and deserve judgement. God could have just given us this judgement already, and that would have been just. It wouldn’t be any different than when we see a serial killer get sentenced in court. We cheer. But… God didn’t stop there. God sent himself in the form of a man 2,000 years ago. He lived a perfect life, died on a cross, and then rose from the dead. What does that mean? It means death has been conquered. Even better news? God has promised us that if we trust in Jesus and what he did for us on the cross, and bow to him as Lord, we will be saved from the judgement of Hell that is coming for the ungodly. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16 So, if you haven’t believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, repent (turn in sorrow). You’re not guaranteed tomorrow. The only thing that matters is how you stand before God, because one day, we will all give an account for what we’ve done. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil. 2 Corinthians 5:10 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.repentlabs.com/subscribe [https://www.repentlabs.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]

No Ethics On Atheist Worldview

Repent Labs is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. In this episode, I discuss the inconsistencies in ethical claims made by atheists, particularly in relation to gun violence and morality. I argue that without a belief in Jesus, atheists lack a solid foundation for their ethical standards. We’ll explore the differences between atheistic and Christian worldviews, particularly in how they approach morality, human flourishing, and the justification for ethical claims. Chapters * Introduction to Ethical Claims and Worldviews * The Atheist Perspective on Gun Violence * The Basis of Ethics in Atheism vs Christianity * Human Flourishing and Objective Morality * The Role of Worldviews in Ethical Discussions * Conclusion: The Need for Objective Moral Standards The comment thread I’ll be analyzing can be found here Takeaways * Inconsistencies in ethical claims must be addressed. * Atheism struggles to provide a basis for ethics. * Human flourishing lacks objective justification in atheism. * Christianity offers a unique & exclusive foundation for objective morality. * Subjectivism leads to moral relativism. * Objective morality is rooted in God's character. * Gun violence discussions need a moral framework. * The importance of understanding the 'why' behind ethics. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.repentlabs.com/subscribe [https://www.repentlabs.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]