Dr. William Lane Craig's Fanboy

Is there any wonder why I love Dr. William Lane Craig and many Atheists despise him? I can see why now y'all call him names and attempt to discount him. He is, quite literally, dangerous to your beliefs and religion. God has certainly blessed this man. Wow, that just had to hurt. His cuts run deep, although I doubt this will be acknowledged by any Atheists. These 5 points would be a good poster on my wall.

5 things that cannot be scientifically evidenced, but we're all rational to accept:

1. Logical and mathematical truths, science presupposes logic and math.
2. Metaphysical truths. Like the universe was created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age.
3. Ethical beliefs and statements of value
4. Aesthetic judgments. Beautiful, like the good, cannot be scientifically proven
5. Science ITSELF cannot be justified by the scientific method. Its also permeated with unprovable assumptions.

Still No Evidence!

In continuation of the conversation of Presuppositionalism vs. Evidentialism we see how ineffective Evidentialism is to the atheist, explained by Dr. Bahnsen.

Also, this taps into one of the major points in our Arrogance of Atheism post.

In a past lecture, Dr. Greg Bahnsen said: "As [a Christian] I would say to an Atheist, there is plenty of evidence for God's existence. God has provided it everywhere. God has provided evidence in the stars of the heavens. God has provided evidence in the power of the seas, and the beauty of the forest. God has provided evidence in the intricacy of the human body. God has provided evidence in the course of history. God has provided evidence in the work that He did in the lives of the Israelites. God has provided evidence in the life of his Son and the miracles that were performed in His resurrection. God has provided evidence in the way He judges nations. God has provided evidence in the scriptures, revealing Himself through the prophets and the apostles. God provides evidence when you look at the wonderful harmony of the Bible written over many centuries by many men. God has provided evidence in the way that the Bible itself satisfies the deepest spiritual needs of people. God has provided evidence in the life transforming power of the Bible. We can go on and on."

Creation Predictions Confirmed by Science.

I just read the headline:

'False' Gene Discovery Confirms Creation Prediction.

Who said Creationism is not science? If science is something that is testable, repeatable, and verifiable then Creationism is far more science then Evolution.

Based on the idea that both genes and non-gene DNA were produced by a Creator, rather than the laws of physics, creation scientist John Woodmorappe predicted in 2003 that pseudogenes would be discovered to play an important regulatory role in cells.

Science is now showing that to be accurate... (Read more at ICR)

Arguments Evolutionists Should Avoid

Once again AIG has produced a very helpful list for people. All of the evolutionists might want to go and check the list out before discussing things here. It just makes thing easier for all of us and it will allow a better flow of the discussion.

Way to go, Answers in Genesis, you did well again. Brilliant work indeed. I suggest to everyone who hasn't, to get a subscription to their award winning magazine "Answers"

Do you want a gift subscription? Email me.

Don't forget to right mouse and click "save link as" the movie: Science Confirms the Bible Is True
or you can click here.


bit.ly/evolavoid

The “H” in Evolution(ists)

Evolutionists say it is a fact that all of biology just happened to arise by accident, and they harshly criticize those who do not agree. But with amazing consistency their criticism is hypocritical—it applies to evolutionary thinking. Consider this recent paper about creationist movements:

In summary, while creationism has evolved diverse labels and strategies for legal and rhetorical purposes, its fundamental essence remains unchanged. That essence is advocacy of miraculous divine intervention, i.e., special creation, in the history of life, and the claim that science must acknowledge special creation or dire consequences for society will follow.

Dire consequences for society? This is precisely the sort of rhetoric used by evolutionists. Skepticism is routinely characterized as anti-science. Diseases will flourish and crops will fall prey to insects without evolution to guide our science. Indeed, the very premise of this paper is that evolution skepticism must be countered. It is a hazard which seeks to return the world to centuries past.

And the fundamental essence of evolution has remained unchanged for centuries. Passages from Lucretius read like modern evolutionary writings. And more recently, the urgings of Enlightenment thinkers laid the groundwork for Darwin and can be found throughout the post-Darwin literature. The essence is the rejection of miraculous divine intervention for a variety of religious and metaphysical reasons. They are repeated ad nauseam today as though they are scientific findings, but they are no different than the evolutionary genre from ... Read more

Evolution, Smoking Gun?

Reynold said: >>Oh yeah, Dan. I'm still waiting for your evidence that the "false claims" on that site I gave earlier are actually "false".

Well the Bible, my authority, claims something entirely different so I am going with that. I don't claim to know all things and I cannot explain half of the finding but you must admit, in intellectual honesty, that the data we have available to us can be interpreted into two different worldviews. That is why we are able to have thriving organizations like the Creation Museum, AIG, IRC, Bio-Complexity, ISCID, Origins.org, People of the likes of Pvblivs, Discovery Institute, Intelligent Design Network, Access Research Network and a plethora of others, flourishing and continuing to make headway in science, even if they have to go it alone without the governments backing them, like the secular scientists have.

IF, big IF, you all were doing your jobs correctly, evolution would have shut us all up years ago. We are still waiting.

Where is the smoking gun?

Really? After all these years you cannot even come close to really showing evidence for evolution that shuts us all down and closes our doors? Are you ALL really that inept?

For example, we all see a fossil of a leaf, or a fish eating another fish.

Evolutionists "interpret" it as sedimentary layers slowly laid down over a period of millions of years while simultaneously preventing the decay of rotting flesh or plants in some miraculous way to form a fossil.

Creationists see a rapid burial through some event that just so happens to be pointed out in a myriad of nations legends, archeological finds (Ahora Covenant Inscription), and books of antiquity (Ogygian deluge, Plato in his Laws, Book III), including the Bible. We only have to go into our back yard to see leaves that decay in a few short days.

Let me know and I will make you a fossil in my backyard with a little concrete.

We all see the bias displayed with headlines like "70 million-year-old fossil yields preserved blood vessels"

O'rly? Is that your smoking gun? I can go on and on but you get the point. There is zero evidence that knocks us on the ground to the point we cannot get up. Archeology and Science are both showing strong evidence for the Biblical claims daily. We are no going anywhere, but you are. We have patience.

I need to add the survey of failed evolutionary predictions.

The Evolutionary Paradigm Breeds Atheists

They have no where else to go. There entire industry, careers, and grants are geared to the paradigm of evolution. If wrong, then there is a Creator. These points were discussed in the article named "What Do Scientists Really Think?" that reviews a new book called,

Science vs Religion: What Scientists Really Think.

We get some of the insight and opinions of secular scientists for example, that was quoting the book, "None of the religious scientists I talked with supported the theory of intelligent design. (94% of religious scientists think that evolution is the best explanation for the development of life on earth)." (pp. 29-30).

Why would they? As Expelled, the Movie points out they would be laughed out, or fired, for such blasphemy towards science. Little do they know science was encouraged in the original Christian universities that searches for the 'Fingerprints Of God'.

Harvard and Yale (originally Puritan) and Princeton (originally Presbyterian) once had rich Christian histories.

Harvard was named after a Christian minister. Yale was started by clergymen, and Princeton’s first year of class was taught by Reverend Jonathan Dickinson. Princeton’s crest still says “Dei sub numine viget,” which is Latin for “Under God she flourishes.”(AIG)

Yea, 'under God she flourishes' and not under God, they will fail. Evidenced by the current Evolutionary Paradigm. Evolution is the biggest lie ever perpetuated on mankind, besides man causing global warming that is.

Someone that reviewed the book said "Perhaps its most surprising finding is that nearly a quarter of the atheists and agnostics describe themselves as 'spiritual.'"

O'rly? Closet Christians? No such animal.

The author, Elaine Ecklund, attempts to show that "Only a small minority are actively hostile to religion. Ecklund reveals how scientists-believers and skeptics alike-are struggling to engage the increasing number of religious students in their classrooms and argues that many scientists are searching for "boundary pioneers" to cross the picket lines separating science and religion."

Ask And You Shall Receive...BIO-Complexity

Dr. Dembski at Uncommon Decent alerted us to a group that is undertaking a new endeavor.

I cannot tell you how many Atheists have asked for real peer reviewed scientific papers on Biblical Creation or the lesser, Intelligent Design. Many Atheists I know, religiously, rely on science as their ONLY source of life's questions.

Well my friends, this year introduces the new:

BIO-Complexity

From their Purpose link:

"BIO-Complexity is a peer-reviewed scientific journal with a unique goal. It aims to be the leading forum for testing the scientific merit of the claim that intelligent design (ID) is a credible explanation for life."

Young-earth creationists (YECs) and the Intelligent Design Movement (IDM) are natural allies in many ways, although we have major differences as well. There is a distinct difference between what I believe, as a Young Earth Creationist, and what proponents of Intelligent Design believe, mainly IDM avoids appealing to the Bible as authoritative "special revelation".

Things for us all to look for are, for example, in the condition of complexity, variety and adaptability in living organisms and ecological systems where the Creation Model espouses that inherent and complete in original populations as created; manifested (and subject to degradation) over time through genetic variation and natural selection. The Evolutionary Model espouses that it increased over time from zero via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years and both are empirically falsifiable.

In the Condition of Massive amounts of Coded Genetic Information, again the Creation Model espouses that inherent and complete in original populations as created; sum total has steadily declined over time via mutational degradation and the Evolutionary Model espouses that increased over time from zero, via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years. Again both of these are empirically falsifiable. (True Origins)

Will these conditions be addressed? Only time, and funding, will tell. This, for now, is the best hope for the Atheists to find, their much desired, extrabiblical truth.

Maybe it would be a good idea for the Atheists to support this effort financially.

Maybe, just maybe, future findings could help the Atheists change their viewpoint of our origins. I will not hold my breath, but I will always remain hopeful for all of you. Your lives, as you all claim, dogmatically depends on that information.

bit.ly/IDMBio

The Problem of Evil Atheism

From antiquity to today, the evil in the world has always been a powerful mandate for evolutionary thinking. God would not have designed or created this evil world, so it must have originated by the blind play of natural law. For centuries this solution has fueled atheism, but from where did evil-ness come?

The evil in the world is obvious and upsetting. Atheists, no less than others and perhaps even more so, are exercised by creation's terrors. Earthquakes and tsunamis kill thousands, diseases terrorize, floods destroy and droughts starve. Then there is the seemingly unending narrative of predation in the biological world. Nature is red in tooth and claw, as Lord Tennyson put it.

Atheists often proclaim this problem of evil as a justification for their beliefs but ironically this evil is as much a problem for atheism as it is a motivation. The problem is that atheism fails to...Read More.

Worldview Quote- Nowhere To Go But...

George Wald (1906 - 1997) Professor of Biology at Harvard University and recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine said:

The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity." It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. "The origin of life" Scientific American August 1954 p.46

Two for Tuesday:

Mao Tse-tung: "Chinese socialism is founded upon Darwin and the theory of evolution." Kampf um Mao's Erbe (1977)




Rhiggs,

>>Call me pedantic, but shouldn't a series of posts called "God Quote of the Day" feature quotes about God, and be posted every day?

OK pedantic, you're right, I will call it "Worldview Quote" instead. I hope that appeases the logic gods. Forgive me.

Worldview Quote -Unintelligent Design

"I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question, and this cannot possibly be done here." (Charles Darwin, Introduction, On the Origin of Species 1859)

Two for Tuesday:

"Directed by all-powerful selection, chance becomes a sort of providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshiped." (Grasse, Pierre-Paul (1977) Evolution of Living Organisms, p. 107 Academic Press, New York, N.Y.)

Worldview Quote

Colin Patterson (1933 – 1998) Senior Palaeontologist at British Museum of Natural History

"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science." The Listener October 8, 1981 p.392

How about a two for Tuesday:

Michael Egnor Professor of Neurosurgery at Stony Brook

"I never use evolutionary biology in my work. Would I be a better surgeon if I assumed that the brain arose by random events? Of course not. Doctors are detectives. We look for patterns, and in the human body, patterns look very much like they were designed. Doctors know that, from the intricate structure of the human brain to the genetic code, our bodies show astonishing evidence of design. That’s why most doctors -- nearly two-thirds according to national polls -- don’t believe that human beings arose merely by chance and natural selection. Most doctors don’t accept evolutionary biology as an adequate explanation for life. Doctors see, first-hand, the design of life." Evolution News & Views: March 2007

Atheists Adopted a Worldview That Science Never Intended

"The Darwinian revolution was not merely the replacement of one scientific theory by another, as had been the scientific revolutions in the physical sciences, but rather the replacement of a world view, in which the supernatural was accepted as a normal and relevant explanatory principle, by a new world view in which there was no room for supernatural forces."

--Ernst Mayr (1904 – 2005) Professor of Zoology at Harvard University

I just read an article that backed up this quote.

The article was called The Burden of Proof: How Atheism Has Adopted a Worldview That Science Never Intended

"I assume that most atheists, who are generally intelligent people, are smart enough to realize that standing from the sidelines and claiming that there is no value in something that they do not practice themselves is not a defensible position. Atheists obviously don't know the value of spiritual practice, because they don't experience its value. Its a bit like someone who has sat idle in front of a computer for most of their lives telling a soccer player that there's no value in soccer. Coming from a non-soccer player, the statement means absolutely nothing..."

"...When and where, in the history of science, do our greatest scientists tell us that one should live their lives believing only in that which can be proven? Who of them has said that it is more 'intelligent' to accept nothing in life but modern western scientific proof?"

It was certainly worth the read.

Evolutionists Were Wrong Again

Once again it was reported today that Evolutionists were wrong about something... yet again.

Evidently the "Scientists find big differences in Y chromosomes of men, chimps"

I did find the first comment in the article spot on when it says:

"No, it may indicate that the human didn't come from the ape to begin with.

Funny how that logical possibility didn't even occur to them."

This article reminded me of another article that I read last year called

Evolution of the appendix: A biological 'remnant' no more.

In a past post it was mentioned that "Evolutionary theory artificially rules out a kind of cause before it has a chance to speak by the evidence. The cause of intelligence. This is why they pigeon hole themselves and scientists often wear, with pride, the title of metaphysical naturalism. Does anyone now see the dangers of scientists taking philosophical positions such as this?"

Someday, hopefully soon, they will understand they are going down a rabbit hole and getting deeper and deeper into a failed religion of falsehood.

bit.ly/wrongagain

Richard Dawkins is a bigot

I just read something entertaining from an Atheist and thought I would link to it for the Dick fans out there.

Even some Atheists are noticing and exposing this joker. That is quite refreshing.

Richard Dawkins is a bigot

Banana Dick Debate Continues

[click picture to play]

We all recently handed out some books at the Universities and Ray is catching some rude comments for doing so. Ray has asked to "keep Richard Dawkins in your prayers. Our aim isn't to make him an enemy, but to see him converted before he goes to meet his Maker."

On that same subject, apparently Ray also allowed an interview with the Friendly Atheist if you wish to check it out.

Also, consistent with his so called "scientific approach" to evidence, Dawkins asked all his atheist friends to rip out the introduction instead of examining the evidence presented in Ray's Origin of Species.

bit.ly/BananaDick

Explain Dignity

We have had many post about the fundamental argument for the existence of God and confirmation of the Christian system.

Bahnsen says in his book Pushing the Antithesis that the naturalistic worldview cannot account for freedom.

If naturalism is true, then naturalists have no reason to believe in naturalism. The naturalists says that all thinking is but electro-chemical response of the gray matter in the material brain, and that these responses are determined by our environment. Human thinking is on the same order as weeds growing. If naturalism is true, then the advocate of the naturalistic approach is only saying he affirms naturalism because nature has determined that he would.

Naturalism contradicts freedom (and dignity). He has no reason for declaring naturalism to be true; he is just forced to say so.

Basic assumptions about human nature lead most deniers to distinguish man from the animals. Or as Aristotle would express it: higher up the "scale of being."

Take funerals to illustrate our inherent sense of dignity. In the Shanidar cave in Iraq, what evolutions claim as "Neanderthal" skeletons have been discovered with a characteristic layer of pollen, which suggests that they buried the dead with gifts of flowers. Even the far left wiki claims, "This has been interpreted as suggesting that Neanderthals believed in an afterlife." So even with evolutionary assumptions, anthropologists acknowledge the idea of human dignity.

Laws in courts is yet another example of the human race's assertion of dignity. Our entire legal system shows our inner realization of human dignity. Is that so within the entire animal kingdom? Lions, for instance, have been known to sniff their dead relatives then consume them.

Respect for the dead as evidenced in funerals and memorials is a distinctly human experience lacking any correspondence to animal activities.

If we are merely advanced animals, why can't we discover any primitive behavior in the animal response to death that "evolved" into our more advanced ceremonies? Certainly funerals have no survival benefit for the species of homo sapiens, as per evolutionary views of animal instincts. Rather funerals point to our sense of dignity and recognition of our personal values, which are wholly lacking in animals.

Idolatrous deniers cannot account for Human dignity.

Bahnsen also made me chuckle as he explained about these extreme environmentalists (tree hungers) who claim respect for all life. "They care for the environment and are kind to all living things. But if that were true then even being a vegetarian wouldn't make sense, for what of the dignity of carrots?"

What dignity, in a materialists worldview, inheres in a collection of DNA strands?

"No inherent moral or ethical laws exist, nor are there absolute guiding principles for human society. The universe cares nothing for us and we have no ultimate meaning in life" claims William Provine, his atheist worldview comes clearly to expression in this statement and certainly precludes any justification of human dignity.

Evolutionist J.W Burrow wrote the intro for a new edition of "The Origin of Species: "Nature, according to Darwin, was the product of blind chance and a blind struggle, and man a lonely, intelligent mutation, scrambling with the brutes for his sustenance."

Bahnsen says "Dignity does not rest on anything in the evolutionary Universe. It defies the law of gravity, so to speak, and just hangs there-if it is affirmed at all. As it has been put, an atheist is someone with no invisible means of support. At best, dignity is simply a human convention. And when affirmed, it becomes a contradiction in the unbeliever's worldview."

The Christian view of man's dignity is affirmed in our Declaration of Independence.


bit.ly/Dignity

Is Everyone A Creationist?

Answers magazine alerted me to an article named:

Humans may be primed to believe in creation

The article is a study of how people think about nature in relation to the Bible claims. (Romans 1:20)



"Researchers showed people a series of statements about nature and asked if they agree or disagreed.

Each statement implied a beneficial purpose behind what we see. As an example "The earth has an ozone layer in order to protect it from UV rays."

People tend to agree. But if nature has no Creator, then these statements would be false. If the ozone layer, for example, resulted from natural processes, then the earth's features could not be designed to protect it(us)."

Bonus points: See if you can find all the presuppositional statements in the "primed to believe" article, from the writer Ewen Callaway.

As an example, a claim of the "primed to believe" article states. "It might turn out that if you put Richard Dawkins or Einstein or whomever [to the test], no matter how expert or educated they are, they might still make these mistakes." (emphasis added)

Certainly it isn't a mistake, unless you have presuppositions of an atheistic evolutionary materialism worldview. The creation of the world are clearly seen, it is just natural to view things with designed purpose. You would have to be indoctrinated and and brainwashed to think a different, unnatural way. Keep in mind that even Dawkins claimed that "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."

I suspect the article may be a bullhorn to the Scientific community to alert them of future studies by Kelemen. They do not want to be embarrassed by any results that confer with the original findings.

The article said, "Indeed, Kelemen is running similar experiments on volunteers with stronger science backgrounds to see if they, too, fall back on such childlike reasoning." (emphasis added)

In other words, Hey, they will be doing the same test on some of us. Alert, alert!! Make the results fit what we believe!!

Forced or skewed results are indeed, unnatural. Dad would call it "creative accounting." The ironic thing is that this type of bias is from a writer from New Scientist. Such irony in this type of zero neutrality reporting.

Maybe "biased" is the new Scientist. So much for objectivity. Shame on you Ewen Callaway, you get to wear the hat for today.

Update: For the record this Ewen Callaway douche presupposes eliminative materialism or, in other words, reductionism-or unjustified imperialism.

bit.ly/Romans120

Self Aware

Many Atheists here like to debate and converse with me. I enjoy it a great deal myself. We have a common enjoyment, to communicate with others. But where does that come from? My question to the Atheist is, do you agree that you are self aware?

The fact that you are talking and debating others assumes your own self-awareness whereby you know yourself, recognize that you live in an environment involving other self-aware humans, and sees value in communication, conversation, and debate between equally self-aware beings. If you didn't you would be admitting that conversing on the existence of God, or any subject whatsoever, would be meaningless.

My next question to you is how do you account for human self-awareness as a fundamental factor of life? Where does it come from? How is it that man is self-aware? Without presupposing God, your worldview is ultimately committed to chance. From the perspective of your worldview, the universe was self-created by chance and is self-diversifying by chance.

In such a naturalistic, materialistic conception of the universe, all must be accounted for in terms of the material interaction of atoms. With that worldview, it forces us to view ourselves as simply matter-in-motion. How can matter be self-aware? Are rocks self aware? Trees? Hammers? In fact, what view of the world makes self-awareness intelligible? Slime is certainly not self-aware, which eventually becomes rational, which eventually becomes moral-and all by the evolutionary mechanism of time plus chance?

In my worldview the personal, sovereign God of Scripture created all things and gave them their properties. He created man in His image, thereby establishing personality and self awareness in us. At the very beginning God communicated with man, speaking intelligently to His rational, self-aware creature (Genesis 1:28-29) and gave him commandments (Genesis 1:28,2:16-17). Consequently, self-awareness and personality are not problems for my, Christian, worldview.

My point is that the very self-awareness of you, even as an idolatrous denier, is evidence for the existence of God due to the impossibility of the contrary.

There are serious internal problems with your worldview. Because of your opposition to the absolute God of Scripture, you must account for reality in some other way then by a personal, rational, sovereign Creator. Simply that your rational is built upon the irrational.

**Of course this argument was taken from the late Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen.

DESTROYING EVOLUTION (With Real Science)

I went searching to see what else Simmons (from the last video) has on his Youtube channel and stumbled across these videos. You know me, I cannot pass up a refutation on evolution. So when I saw this title I just had to post it...enjoy.