Psalm 89:36-37
“His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me. It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven. Selah.”  

Strictly speaking, the Moon does not orbit the Earth. Let me explain. The Moon is actually a large body compared to the Earth. It is the fifth largest natural satellite in the Solar System. Only three moons of Jupiter (Ganymede, Callisto and Io) and one moon of Saturn (Titan) are larger. In fact, it is the 14th largest object in the Solar System. Its volume is 2% that of the Earth, and its mass 1%. So it is a very significant size compared to the Earth. That means that the Moon doesn’t really orbit the Earth. Both Earth and Moon orbit a common center of gravity. However, that center of gravity is within the surface of the Earth.

This large size for the Moon, compared to its host planet, means that Earth and Moon affect each other greatly. The Earth’s gravitational pull on the Moon is such that it maintains a synchronous orbit, where its rotation on its axis occurs at the same rate as its orbital period. The practical result of this is that one side of the Moon is constantly facing the Earth, while the other constantly faces away.

The Moon’s gravity affects the Earth by pulling somewhat on the oceans, causing a bulge, which is what gives us our tides. These tidal forces also operate on the land but are not so noticeable.

God made the Moon special and caused it to be the faithful witness in the sky, “dying” for three days, then rising again.

creationmoments.com/sermons/earth-and-moon

Genesis 1:16
“And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.”

One of the most significant differences between the true account of creation in Genesis and the various myths of the Ancient Near East is that those myths give great prominence to the Sun and the Moon. In many cases, these are supposed to be god-consorts; the Sun being the male god and the Moon his wife, though in some legends, it is the other way around. The Bible’s actual history, however, emphasizes that the Sun and Moon were both created objects, and that God did not even create them until the Fourth Day. If that was not enough humiliation for these pretender gods, Genesis does not even refer to them by name! It simply calls them the Greater Light (to rule the day) and the Lesser Light (to rule the night).

It is clear why the Greater Light is set to rule the day. The daytime is defined by the Sun, even though we know, of course, that God caused the first three days to happen without the Sun being in existence. But it is intriguing to think of the Moon ruling the night. For a start, some might object that the Moon is sometimes seen during the day. Not only that, but its phases mean that the amount of light during the hours of darkness varies a great deal.

​It turns out that many nocturnal animals need this variation, and, in particular, need the limited light provided by the Moon. God created everything just right for life on Earth.

creationmoments.com/sermons/the-lesser-light

Genesis 1:4
“And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness,”

At the time of writing, 2018 is ending, and we are just entering the time for commemorating the fact that half a century ago, human beings went to the Moon.

On Christmas Eve 1968, Frank Borman, James Lovell, and William Anders were a long way from home. They were making history by being the first people ever to be in orbit around another world. I remember clearly the stunning pictures, broadcast from close to the Moon’s surface, including photographs of the hidden side of the Moon – the side that constantly faces away from the Earth. Also etched in my memory was that sight of the famous Earthrise picture, taken as the bright disk of the Earth, so far away, rose over the Lunar horizon, and we were all transported to another place in our imaginations.

Prior to Apollo 8’s launch, the astronauts had been reminded that they would be broadcasting live on Christmas Eve 1968, so they had better think of something very significant to say to a vast television audience all over the Earth! They rose magnificently to the challenge, as they took turns to read out the first ten verses of Genesis chapter 1 from notes typewritten on to special fireproof paper, reminding all those who had ears to hear that the Moon, like the Earth, was created by God, for His Glory and for His good pleasure.

​“And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.”

creationmoments.com/sermons/memories-from-the-moon

Following are a couple of the responses to the report in last week’s Friday Church News Notes:

RESPONSE # 1 - “I am a 1977 BJU grad. I am EXTREMELY upset I am forced to realize that BJU is now a New Evangelical school, having become so without a peep from Dr. Bob Jones the third, as far as I know. Two or three years ago I checked out the website of a man who was scheduled to preach in Bible Conference. On the link for his church's youth group, one can hear hard rock music. Not wimpy ‘soft rock’ but HARD rock. No pastor treating his church kids to hard rock should even be allowed close to the BJU pulpit, much less preach from it. I complained to President Petitt, who responded with a ‘I see nothing wrong with it’ response. No surprise, since he is actually in the video. Please note on the school’s website, the link for ‘Approved Greenville Churches’ lists not only Second Presbyterian Church (PCA) but also the Southern Baptist Church directly across the street from the school, White Oak Baptist, pastored by Dr. Lonnie Polson, a member of the BJU faculty and Dept. Head. I predict after the death of 80-year-old Bob Jones III, they will change the name of the school.”

​RESPONSE # 2 - “Bob Jones has been hemorrhaging students over the past 20 years. They have basically lost their independent Baptist constituency. IBC pastors are nervous not only about their position on the Bible, but also their growing affinity to reformed/covenant theology. Northland went down a similar route. (They were known as the BJ of the Midwest in their heyday.) So now BJ is reaching out to their Presbyterian friends to try and rebuild the school. I doubt if that will work. The Presbyterians have their own network of colleges. But when colleges lose constituencies, their enrollment drops. When that happens, their finances drop. When that happens, they begin to make desperate moves to stay afloat. We are witnessing that at Bob Jones as we speak. I watched the same thing at Northland and Pillsbury, not to mention Tennessee Temple University, Clearwater, and Calvary Seminary. Other places like Central Seminary and Detroit Seminary are barely hanging on and are now more evangelical than fundamentalist. (Incidentally all of these places have been a part of the Bob Jones Network, not to mention groups like the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship. But the common thread in all these places has been the embrace of scholarship--one of the tenets of New Evangelicalism--which has led them to embrace critical-text Bibles and then flirting with reformed theology and CCM. They either all have failed or are in the process of failing including the FBF. Of course, true focus on evangelism fades inversely as elitist scholarship attitudes increase. How sad!”

(Friday Church News Notes, December 6, 2019, www.wayoflife.org fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143)

Psalm 19:1
“The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork”.

As with many astronomical topics, we have discussed dark matter before in these Creation Moments. Big Bang Believers have a mass problem. There is not enough observed mass in the universe to account for many observations. Therefore, many Big Bang Believers suggest that the universe must be filled with dark matter. This form of matter, which must constitute the overwhelming majority of the universe’s mass, does not interact with anything else in the universe; hence, it cannot be seen. It should, at this point, be emphasized that not all secular cosmogonists believe in the existence of dark matter. Indeed, not even all Big Bang Believers accept it.

A recent report published by the Royal Astronomical Society refers to star clusters, whose appearance they interpret as showing evidence for dark matter.

“We have found a way to ‘see’ dark matter,” says the report’s lead author. “We have found that very faint light in galaxy clusters, the intracluster light, maps how dark matter is distributed.”

It needs to be emphasized over and over again that astronomers have not seen dark matter, nor have they seen the formation of stars. They have observed interesting phenomena which they interpret as dark matter.

​John Hartnett, a creationist cosmologist, explains that the concept of dark matter prevents, rather than aids, explanation of cosmology because it is believed to constitute the overwhelming majority of the universe. “Even if we should come up with a theory that perfectly explained what we do see, we have not explained the universe.”

creationmoments.com/sermons/seeing-dark-matter

Psalm 19:1
“The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.”

We have discussed in previous Creation Moments how those who believe in the Big Bang Theory (let’s call them Big Bang Believers) have a sophisticated model of star formation into which they plug a number of interesting observations which could easily be interpreted in another way. For example, they would claim that certain gas molecule clouds, such as the Eagle Nebula, which contain small, bright stars, are, in fact, nurseries where stars are born. They then make the claim that they have observational evidence for the birth of stars, but this is, logically, a circular argument. The observed nebula is interpreted as the birth of stars only because it is interpreted according to their Big Bang Belief. The nebula cannot then be offered up as evidential proof for the very theory which is used to interpret it.

In a similar manner, Big Bang Believers have a theory of planetary formation. In most cases, they assume that a cloud of gas and dust orbits the newly formed star and that, following a disturbance by something such as another star passing by, clumps of rock begin to aggregate under gravity until planet-sized lumps are formed.

One cloud of gas was recently reported as emanating from an observed star 685 light years away. The star has an evolutionary age of 2 million years. But what was actually observed is a large stellar flare. A Big Bang interpretation does not constitute proof and cannot undermine the Scriptural position that God made such objects on Day Four.

creationmoments.com/sermons/do-baby-planets-exist

Psalm 19:1
“The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.”

Big Bang Believers have an entire story about the life cycle of stars. It is a sophisticated story, as it has to encompass stars of many different types and lots of observed phenomena. However, its sophistication does not authenticate every element of it.

One of the consequences of this belief is the observation of so-called star nurseries. This leads to the claim that we can see stars forming in clouds of molecules or nebulae. After all, the model for star formation that Big Bang Believers use is that something disturbs the constituent parts of a molecular cloud so that molecules stick together in clumps. These clumps are said to act on each other by gravity, growing bigger and bigger, while the center gets hotter and hotter, until hydrogen atoms at the center begin to undergo nuclear fusion, and the star switches on!

It must be emphasized over and over again that this has not been observed to happen. Again, this has not been observed to happen. What is actually observed is the molecular cloud with small stars inside it, so the observation is assumed to be part of the story. One website suggested that the necessary disturbance could be caused by a comet passing through the nebula. But such a passage by a comet has not been observed.

God has certainly made an active universe in which there are changes that can be observed or inferred. But these things declare His glory, not random, deep-time chance.

creationmoments.com/sermons/do-baby-stars-exist

Genesis 7:20-21
“Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:”

Some of the most fascinating fossils are those of insects and other creatures trapped in amber. The creatures are often well-preserved and look as if they have been trapped quickly. One recent science article reported on a find in Lebanon of insects trapped in the process of hatching out from their eggs. The insects, which appear to be like modern green lacewings, show every indication of being newly hatched, by a number of anatomical features. Dr. Michael S. Engel, one of the study’s authors, said, “The process of hatching is ephemeral, and the structures that make it possible tend to disappear quickly once egg-laying animals hatch, so obtaining fossil evidence of them is truly exceptional.” Also, their jaws had not fully interlocked – a process that happens very soon in newly hatched nymphs.

​Although the evolutionary scientists reporting the find acknowledge the sudden death of the insects and their entrapment in the amber, they believe the whole fossil to be 130 million years old. Yet, amber, which is formed by the polymerization of the sticky wood resin which has trapped the insects, degrades quickly in the open. So the amber itself must have been buried rapidly in sediment, suggesting a catastrophic formation. Amber fossils, therefore, shed light on creatures of the pre-Flood world, not that of mythical deep time. It is interesting that evolutionist researchers do not carry out carbon dating on amber fossils, no doubt concerned that a carbon date would be consistent with a biblical age.

creationmoments.com/sermons/amber-light-on-pre-flood-world

A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, starring Tom Hanks, depicts the life of Fred Rogers, a Presbyterian minister who was famous for the children’s television program Mr. Rogers. He was “Mr. Nice” personified. He was always positive. He never condemned or offended anyone. He never called anyone a sinner, never commanded anyone to repent or perish, never warned of destruction. He had his own code of personal morality, but he didn’t judge anyone else’s. His most famous line was “Won’t you be my neighbor?” In fact, he didn’t even mention God on his program. Even The Daily Beast, an ultra-liberal, leftist, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual rights, pro-socialist news site, praises Mr. Rogers for his “niceness” in the report “Finally, Something Nice: Tom Hanks Playing Mr. Rogers May Save Us All” (Nov. 18, 2019). But the reason why Mr. Rogers’ Christianity appealed even to some atheists is that it was false. The true Jesus is far more loving than Mr. Rogers’ Jesus and also far more holy and just and righteous. The true Jesus is love incarnate, but He is not Mr. Nice by man’s standards. The true Jesus doesn’t smile at sin or overlook sin. He suffered and died for sin to make the atonement required by God’s holy law for sinners to be saved. He doesn’t offer “universal” salvation or preach the Fatherhood of God. He says, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God,” and He repeated it for emphasis (John 3:3, 7). The true Jesus isn’t all-positive, all-accepting. He said, “I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish,” and He repeated it for emphasis (Luke 13:3, 5). The true Jesus doesn’t preach heaven for all. He said, “And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched” and He repeated it five times for emphasis (Mark 9:43, 44, 45, 46, 48). The true Jesus called men evil (Luke 11:13). The true Jesus called some men fools and blind, full of hypocrisy and iniquity, serpents, generation of vipers (Matthew 23:13-33). This generation is in love with a false christ. It is the Hillsong christ, the Joel Osteen smiley-face christ. But it is an idol that is not real and cannot save and will be an eternal disappointment.

(Friday Church News Notes, November 29, 2019, www.wayoflife.org fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143)

​Psalm 104:24
“O LORD, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches.”

There are many and various animals in the world, and some of them can be very unusual. Perhaps one of the strangest is the coconut crab (Birgus latro). Despite its name, it rarely eats coconuts. But the fact that it possesses such a name is one of the odd things about it. It is a land crab. Of course, there are a number of species of land crabs around the world, but to those of us in the western world, the land still seems an unusual environment for a type of animal that we expect to see in the sea.

Coconut crabs are huge. They are the largest land-dwelling arthropods, and they look very intimidating.  Their bodies are about 16 inches across, and their leg span can be up to 3 feet. Their huge claws can cause considerable pain, and they don’t seem to like to let go! And they live primarily on land, usually in burrows, though they can climb trees. This gives the crab its alternative name of “robber crab”, because they will steal coconuts from the palms.

Were these animals made like this, or did God create crabs with sufficient adaptability for some of them to live on land?

Evolutionists suppose that all crustaceans, like crabs, have a common ancestor. Yet, the fossil record does not show this. Nor is it possible to postulate one for such a wide variety of types. God, in His creativity, has made so many wonderful sorts of animals.

creationmoments.com/sermons/of-crabs-and-coconuts

Since 2006, we have documented the move toward Reformed Calvinism on the part of many BJU graduates, but it wasn’t clear where the school itself stood. That picture has now come into clear focus, and it is worse than we suspected. In October, BJU president Steve Pettit participated in the “Greenville Conference on Reformed Theology” at Second Presbyterian Church. The other two speakers were Joel Beeke and Richard Phillips. Beeke is a professor at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary and Phillips serves on the board of The Gospel Coalition. On November 11-12, Andy Naselli was the guest speaker at BJU for the Stewart Custer Lecture Series. Naselli is a professor at John Piper’s Bethlehem College & Seminary and an elder of Bethlehem Baptist Church. Naselli is also on the staff of The Gospel Coalition. It is becoming more clear why Bob Jones University is building bridges to Keith Getty, who is a Reformed Calvinist and whose pastor, Alistair Beggs, is a prominent member of The Gospel Coalition. TGC represents the new Reformed Calvinism. Unlike old Reformed Calvinism, new Reformed Calvinism is ecumenical. The old Reformed men believed that Rome is the great whore of Revelation 17, drunken with the blood of the martyrs, but the new Reformed have ecumenical relationships with Rome, or at least are sympathetic to it. On the TGC web page “Should Christians Be Ecumenical,” we find the following: “Can evangelicals and Catholics truly be together? Jesus’ prayer for unity in the Body obligates me to see the ecumenical task as important for Christianity” (by Trevin Wax, a Southern Baptist Wheaton College professor who associates with the Gettys). This is false. Jesus’ prayer in John 17 has nothing to do with ecumenism. In fact, Christ emphasized obedience to God’s Word and the importance of truth (Joh. 17:6, 8, 14, 17, 19), which are incompatible with ecumenism. Lou Martuneac makes the following observation, “What has BJU president Steve Pettit shown us by taking an active role in this conference, with these speakers? First, he has removed any lingering doubt of having led the University to embrace Reformed Theology. Second, The Gospel Coalition (TGC) includes men in its leadership who are some of the most egregious of ecumenical compromisers among the so-called ‘conservative’ evangelicals. To any objective observer surely enough has been seen to erase any lingering doubt that BJU has abandoned its foundational, separatist principles. The University has always been theologically broad. So--that’s not new. What is new is the association with compromised denominations that have never espoused fundamentalism” (“This Is Not Your Father’s Bob Jones University, A Continuation,” In Defense of the Gospel, Nov. 14, 2019).

(Friday Church News Notes, November 29, 2019, www.wayoflife.org fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143)

Psalm 8:8
“The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.”

Every so often, as we like to report in these Creation Moments, evolutionists find that their own discoveries and their own presuppositions cause them to have to rewrite and rethink huge areas of evolutionary theory. One such area is the supposed evolutionary development of feathers.

Feathers are marvelous examples of design. We have commented before about the impossibility of the evolution of feathers in birds. While recognizing some of the problems inherent in alleged feather development, evolutionists have simply pushed back feather development on to therapod dinosaurs, such as tyrannosaurus, supposedly 180 million years ago. Now, scientists at the University of Bristol, have investigated the little hairs, or pycnofibres, on pterosaurs, and determined that they think these are feathers. Previously, evolutionists had not thought that pterosaurs were related to therapods, so they now have to write a whole new section of evolution, based on the supposed origin of feathers, pushing back the evolutionary date for feathers to 250 million years ago.

There are so many issues to pick holes with here. Remember that the dating of these creatures relies on the dates of fossils, which are not, contrary to popular opinion, dated by any radiometric method, and certainly not by carbon dating. They are dated using circular reasoning where the dates of rocks and fossils are guesstimated from each other.

Creationists would not have any problem with finding out that creatures other than birds had feathers. We still point to the impossibility of the evolution of these marvelous objects.

creationmoments.com/sermons/pterosaur-feathers