He asked me if I was from Missouri, and I responded that I was from Penn State and was in Missouri to preach. He explained that one of his parishioners had called him and told him about the preaching. He decided he would come out and take a look. For about fifteen minutes, I had the opportunity to explain to him somewhat what the preaching is all about, and how it works. He seemed receptive to what I had to say.

The sodomites ended their protest, so I jumped up on the wall and began to preach. I gathered a small crowd but because I was not in the middle of the preacher's circle, it was hard to judge the volume of my voice. I began to strain my voice. Doctor Acuff was there on his day off, so I turned the preaching over to him. He stood unafraid right beside the sodomites table, and did a good job of preaching. When he was done the Lutheran pastor, came over and asked if he could preach. He preached for 45 minutes. When he was done, I asked him if this was the first time he had preached in public this way. He said it was. He left before I got a chance to talk more to him, but I did get his business card.

While Doctor Acuff was preaching, a young fellow came up to me and asked me if the Doctor was preaching the Word of God. He said " I'm searching for God and I don't want to be deceived". I talked to him for some time. He was 26 and about to get married. He and his fiance decided they wanted to have a sanctified relationship and to marry in the Lord. Consequently he was talking to her pastor at length concerning salvation. As we spoke, I realized he was very much like me in many ways. He also joined the Marine Corps to become a man, and he was a thinker.

The more I spoke to him, the more I was impressed. His understanding of spiritual things was excellent, much more insightful than the average student or even the average Christian. I told him I thought he must have made a commitment to the Lord but did not realize it. He was telling me many things he could not have known except the Holy Spirit showed to him. I encouraged him to continue to seek, pray, read the Bible, and attend church. I made it a point though to tell him that the source of the knowledge of God was not the church, nor the book, but the Lord himself, using the others as tools and the Holy Spirit as the communication line.

There was an article in the Daily Collegian today. The Daily Collegian

Doctor Acuff was there and he a told me that he had grandparents who died in Nazi Germany. He put on a star of David sticker that the students were passing out, and joined with them in reading names of holocaust victims. They read from 10:00 in the morning until 2:30 in the afternoon. When they wound down I went into the circle and took my position.

My message was that it was good to decry the evil that men do but we must always recognize that it's not enough to just decry the evil that other men do, somewhere else and some other time. The reason the students get upset with us when we come out on campus is because we cry out against the evil than they do on a daily basis. It's not sufficient to decry only the evil that other men do. We must first fight against the evil that we do, before we can fight against the evil that another man does.

I gathered a small crowd and preached for about half an hour. Doctor Acuff seemed anxious to preach, so I turned the crowd over to him, and he preached for about 30 minutes more. By then the crowd had dissipated. At the next break I tried again to gather a new crowd, but was not able to. Doctor Acuff and I fellowshipped for a while and I was able to give him my testimony. He talked about his growth in understanding of the dynamics of preaching and he told me he was getting more comfortable with being confrontational. It was a good quiet time to get to know the doctor better.

I spoke mostly concerning issues of science in particular carbon-14 dating, geology, and the age of the earth. The crowd was very rebellious and could not control itself when presented with scientific evidence for the truth of the Bible. For their entire time in school they have been told that the Bible is a myth and evolution is science. But when I start to talk, I don't talk to them about the theology of creation, I talk to them about the science of creation. Apparently they have very little experience with a scientist who can defend creation, and point out the many errors of evolutionary thought.

Most students do not realize that neither creation nor evolution can be categorized as science. In order for anything to be included in the scientific realm It has to have three characteristics. First it has to be observable. Science is the methodology of observing events in nature and formulating hypotheses to explain the causation of the observed phenomenon. Secondly, it has to be reproducible. If something cannot be reproduced, it cannot be included in the realm of science. And thirdly, the hypothesis formulated must be falsifiable. If a hypothesis cannot be falsified than it's not in the realm of sciences but in the realm of metaphysics.

Using this definition, neither revelation or creation can be included in the scientific realm. Neither can be observed, neither can be reproduced, and while evolution has been falsified hundreds of times over, the "theory" simply morphs around the falsification and evolves to explain away the falsification.

For example, Darwin himself posited several falsifications of his own theory. One falsification was that if his theory were true, there must be countless transitional fossils indicating small morphological changes gradually changing one species into another. Since the science of paleontology was not yet invented, he could not show any evidence that conformed to that prediction. Instead he displaced the proofs into the future by stating that he was confident that the transitional forms would be uncovered in time. Fast forward 160 years.

In all that time, not one incontrovertible transitional form has ever been found. NOT ONE. But the theory was adjusted to explain away the lack of evidence, rather than admit that it had been falsified. Now the latest news outlets have been trumpeting the discovery, finally, of "Ida - the missing link". It is a foot and a half tall lemur. Give me a break.

Full Story

More correctly both evolution and creation fit within the realm of forensics. Forensics is the discipline of trying to explain unobserved and non-reproducible events based on the physical evidence left behind. Police work is founded on forensic. While evolution is not science, as far as forensics goes, it is an even lousier explanation of the physical evidences left in the earth since it's formation.

When it comes to forensic evidence, whichever is true whether creation or evolution, the physical evidence should indicate clearly one side or the other. Having read science journals, magazines, books, articles, white papers, and technical monographs from 35 years, it is evident to me that the massive preponderance of physical evidence on the earth indicates that the earth was created about 6000-7000 years ago and destroyed by a gigantic global flood. Evolutionists have been clinging to straws, and I predict that within 10 more years, the theory of evolution will be so completely falsified, that only a religious zealot will attempt to defend it.

For some reason, which seems to be unrecognized by the students, whenever I start reciting the physical evidence that points to a recent global flood the students become exceedingly unreasonable, unwilling to entertain the possibility that they have been duped all of their lives into believing a fairy tale. In a future journal, I hope to cover more of the geological evidence for a young earth.

I had intended to point out the differences between Jesus and all

the other religions of the world. Of all the religions of the world, Jesus is the only one who promises to set us free from sin. The Bible says "that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin" - I Jn 3:5. John the Baptist referred to Jesus in this manner, "behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world" - Jn 1:29. It is when we accept the promise of deliverance from sin that our sins are forgiven, our past sins that is. Jesus did not come to remove God's Law, but to remove the offense by which we come under the condemnation of the Law. By removing the sin itself, we are no longer condemned by the Law. We are pure and spotless, like Adam and Eve before the fall.

Every other religion falls into one of two categories. The first category, like Islam and Judaism, does not offer to free the person from sin but condemns the person to go to judgment in their sins and hope for the best. Their idea of judgment is that they think God will measure their bad deeds against their good deeds and balance them out. This is no hope at all. Adam and Eve sinned only one time, and that one time was sufficient to bring on death. The Bible says that Jesus was made to the sin for us. If God did not spare his own sinless son when he was made to be sin, how can the world delude itself into thinking that God will spare us in our sins.

The second category consists of those religions like Hinduism that, rather than deal with the subject of sin, simply deny that it exists. These have no hope whatsoever because God is a just God. Simply believing that we did not sin against him is not a defense. On the other hand, the promises of God in Jesus is that he will deliver us from our sins, forgive us all of our past sins, and present us to God in the judgment as holy and pure, without spot or wrinkle. Jesus is unique among all religions.

Doctor Acuff took over preaching, while Jed and I fielded questions from groups surrounding us. I spoke to a young Christian girl who was having a hard time grasping the idea of perfection. I showed her a number of versus in the scriptures that indicate we indeed can be made perfect in this flesh before death.

1Pe 4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin; 2 That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God.

This verse does not equivocate about ceasing from sin while still in the flesh before death.

1Jo 3:5-10 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God…

The standard is very high, but Jesus makes it possible for us to attain to it. I think what the girl was focusing on was her own frailty, her own weakness. What I was trying to get her to see is that the power of God in Christ Jesus is much greater than her frailty. If Jesus, who claims to be God and who claims to have all power and authority in heaven and on earth, cannot set us free from sin, then it can only mean that he is not God. If sin is more powerful than God, than Satan must be God.

Because He is God, Jesus can set us free from sin. All power and authority in heaven and on earth was given unto him. In the end, she said she didn't think she could ever be perfect. I warned her that if, by the time the Lord returns, she hasn't stopped sinning she probably won't make it. I hope I shook her up enough to cause her to open the Bible to see if the things which I was saying to her are true.

At the very end of the day, I had a wonderful conversation with a Catholic student named Denny. I was able to convince him of the need for a Christian to live a holy life and that the goal of perfection is reasonable and attainable, even though it may be hard.

There was another article in the Collegian today. The Daily Collegian

Friday, April 24th, Doctor Acuff started out the day preaching, but before too long, he was asked a question on science. He called on me to answer the question. I answered the question and then tried to go down a new and exciting scientific line of reasoning that I had been pursuing - explaining the age of the earth as determined by radiometric dating.

There is an excellent YouTube video on 5 anomalies in science. These anomalies, when viewed apart are just curiosities. But when viewed together, they begin to topple the edifice of immense age for the universe.

(1) The red shift from distant stars is not smooth, as expected, but occurs in jumps.

(2) The measured speed of light has been changing over the 350 years that we have been measuring it. It has been decreasing.
(3) Planck's Constant has been increasing.
(4) The rest mass of particles has been increasing.
(5) The rate of ticking of the atomic clock has been slowing down.

The implications of these combined deeply interrelated observations essentially devastates the theory that the earth is extremely old. Because we can see stars at great distances does not prove that the earth is extremely old, if the speed of light was much higher at the beginning of the cosmos.