Civic Duty

Serious case ahead and I cannot say any more. This will take at least a couple of weeks. I cannot read anything about this case, courts, or jury duty as I was instructed.

Stan said Since you're poised to sit in a jury box, perhaps you should be more aware of just what the laws of this country stipulate.

Stan, I stopped reading everything past this point. First because I can't stand your arrogant smugness right now and second I don't want my virgin eyes to be affected by anything for this case. I will read it after we reach a verdict.

Have a good couple of weeks all. Two weeks without atheists? Is this Heaven?

Speaking of judgments...How would you fair in God's Court?

Defending the Christian Faith

I may have to go to jury duty for a long case so this may be my last post for a while. I will know more Monday.

To allow a continuation of the discussion about worldviews this post is relevant. More accurately though, this post is a ode to Dani' El from discussions I have had with him, also since he is currently reading the book "Always Ready- Directions for Defending the Faith" by the late great Dr. Greg Bahnsen. (my copy is on it's way). I so love this man's mind.

I thought you would find it interesting to be a fly on the wall as he is lecturing to us Christians. Atheists, if you want to be shoved back against the wall gasping for breath just listen to some of this brilliant teaching. Does the evidence of God, or lack of, place atheists in a neutral position? Listen for the answer by Dr. Bahnsen.





UPDATE: Hendrik van der Breggen did an article on Moral relativism and tolerance that would be worth the read. The comment to froggie was brilliant.

Adams Rib?

Speaking of proper hermeneutics…

I heard something early in the morning from a local preacher that gave me pause. He was discussing Adam's rib and the proper translation that was compelling.

In Genesis 2:21 God took one of Adam’s ribs to create Eve.

“and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof” KJV

“he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh.” NIV, NASB

And it appears that all of the translations say this. Is that what it really said in the original Hebrew manuscripts?

According to Strong's Hebrew Lexicon the word rib, Hebrew צלע 'tsela' (Strong’s 6763) , side or rib from the primitive root word of צלע 'tsala' (Strong’s 6760) which means curve, limp in the sense of bowing, to arc, as in pray.

So what does this all mean? Well what if the translation was indeed wrong and that it was in fact “tsala“(Strong’s 6760) they did not understand that God took from Adam’s curve. So they extrapolated (assumed) that it meant rib. God said Adam’s curve. In other words from Adam’s Double Helix (Curve) DNA.

Understandably, back in 1611 we had it wrong. We had no clue what a curve from Adam was. The very exact Hebrew word צלע could mean rib or curve. The implications of this is huge, Howard huge.

Remember this was written 3000-4000 years before mankind had any clue as to what DNA was. This shows, once again, the supernatural aspect of God’s Word. The Bible is fully and completely inspired, infallible, and inerrant Word of God. No man can convince me otherwise.

So, should we trust man with the various translations to make decisions about the fallibility and in turn question the reliability of the Bible? Of course not. Should we trust the preserved Word of God with our entire lives? Definitely!



bit.ly/Adamrib

Rhetorical Adjuration

A Paradigm for Design

"I have not heard of any scientific theory about a creator... God should be considered part of nature, not separate from it, and thus the subject of scientific inquiry"

If you have noticed the original video has been removed and replaced. The Original was titled: Bacterial Flagella: a Paradigm for Design please keep an eye out for it! We cannot be silenced.

Before it is written off so quickly or if anyone introduces Ken Miller, watch this rant.

The Theory of Evilution is a Myth

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

Part Four

Part Five





This five part series should show anyone who is open to the truth, the very obvious reason that the Myth of Evolution is being imposed on the evidence, lacks falsifiability, and has become a part of the contemporary worldview.

Christ’s New Covenant Church Kingdom

CwC asked: Dan, what stops you from obeying the Mosaic Code?

For those of us who are saved, if it's in the Old Covenant it has been nailed to the Cross by Jesus, as fulfilled, and the New Covenant has continued it. The only time you would follow the Old Covenant of the nation of Israel, is if it is repeated in the New Covenant, for the saved. 

You won't find anything repeated about keeping the Sabbath in the New Covenant, for example, because Jesus is our Sabbath rest. So the 4th Old Commandment had been fulfilled for the saved. (Hebrews 4:9-10, Matthew 11:28)

Jeremiah 31:31-34, Hebrews 8:7-8,13, Luke 22:20, 1 Corinthians 11:25, Hebrews 8:6, Hebrews 9:11-15, ,Hebrews 1:1-14, Romans 6:14, Romans 8:1-4, Hebrews 10:16

I can stop here and point you to Hebrews 10:9-10  that clearly spells it out, but I'll flesh it out further. I am sure you are fully aware of this, but it's worth repeating for the discussion. We need to make a distinction between the three types of laws in the Old Testament for the nation of Isreal.

The first type is ceremonial. These are the laws governing the temple worship and the way the Jewish were to approach God. They have to do with the layout of the temple, the ways a person must be purified, the sacrificial system. We don’t sacrifice animals today because, for one they were for Israel, and two Jesus has come, the perfect sacrificial Lamb of God. He, in his death on the cross, fulfilled the ceremonial law. They only apply as Christ has fulfilled these, to those that are saved in Him.

The second type is judicial, civil law. These laws covered the specific laws for the nation of Israel. These still apply to given a proper Godly way to run a government, I believe. They are about not taxing, no police force fining it's citizens for infractions, and more about restitution and capital punishment, instead of prisons, as a much better way to governing it's citizens. The civil law has been fulfilled by Christ in that God’s Kingdom, extended to all nations, transcending national identity as a better way to run a government with the headship of Jesus Christ.  

The third type is moral law, the Ten Commandments fall into this category. These are laws that transcend the civil and ceremonial laws. Yes, Jesus fulfilled the moral law, just as he did the other two, but we are now free to follow this Law. They are still in effect, because they are a reflection of God’s moral character, and that does not change. We, as the saved, are not held to the Law as a Covenant.

On a side note, the dietary guidelines in Leviticus 11 are still "in effect" I want to believe. Even if it's repeated and continued in the NT for Israel, while Christ was still around, they have been fulfilled and no longer apply under the New Covenant. But, the fact that 'clean' and 'unclean' foods haven't changed, gives us a guide. But again, you're made clean through Christ, not from anything we're doing, or ingesting. It's just good to not ingest unclean animals that were created to ingest death and the refuge of the world. God's wisdom gave us very good nutritional, and preparatory, guidelines. Following them just makes sense still. It just will not get you to heaven by doing so. These days we have more options to continue to follow the practices even. We even have beef bacon!

Galatians 3:11-13 "But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:"

Jesus, at the time before the cross, was an Old Covenant prophet (Old Covenant Messianic Kingdom of David), after the cross he became the High Priest (Christ’s New Covenant Church Kingdom)

In order for there to be a change in the LAW, there had to be a change in the Priesthood. Jesus did NOT become High Priest of His New Covenant Kingdom until He was Resurrected from the dead. If Jesus, before the Cross, had given NEW Covenant Law, there would have been NO New High Priest to Mediate it. When He was alive we were still under the Old Covenant Messianic Kingdom of David.

Hebrews 7:12 "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law."

Romans 7:5-7 "For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

All people will face God under one of two covenants. Either Adam, or the second Adam named Jesus Christ. It's that simple. 1 Corinthians 15:45-49

Which Covenant are you going to meet God under?

bit.ly/Cncck

Shadowy Prophecies

[Click inside picture for links to Messianic Prophecy list]

In the OT there were many shadowy prophecies for the NT.

For example baptism:

1 Pet 3:20-21 "Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"

Another example is the sacrificing of a lamb to cover the sins in the OT to the sacrificing the Lamb of God for forgiveness of sins in the NT.

The sacrificial lamb during Passover referring to Jesus our Passover Lamb. (1 Corinthians 5:7) The blood of the lamb over the door to save your first born and the Lamb of God, His first and only begotten son, shed His Blood to save everyone.

From Sabbath as a day in the OT, to Sabbath is Jesus Christ in NT; Jesus is our Sabbath Rest is another shadowy prophecy.

The reason why Jesus said "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34) was because of the fulfillment of the prophetic explanation of Himself dying on the Cross in Psalm 22. In verse 15 "they pierced my hands and my feet" hundreds of years before Crucifictions were invented as a form of death penalty.

Read Isaiah 53 1-12 and you will see that it was written about Jesus and was written almost 700 years before Christ was even born.

My all time favorite is The Ten Commandments are like the ten camels that carried Abraham's servant in search of a bride for his only begotten son, Isaac (Genesis 24:10-20). When the servant arrived at the city, Nahor I believe, he had his ten camels kneel down outside the city before the well at the time the woman go out to draw water. He prayed that the bride to be would be evidenced by the fact that she would have consideration for the camels. When Rebekah saw the camels, she ran to the well to get water for them.

God, the Father, sent His Spirit to search for a bride for His only begotten Son. He has chosen the Ten Commandments to carry this special message.

The Holy Spirit knows that the primary reason the bride draws water from the well of salvation is to satisfy the ten thirsting camels of a holy and just Law. If the Law didn't demand death for sin, we wouldn't need a Savior. The true convert comes to the savior simply to satisfy the demands of a holy Law.

The espoused virgin has respect for the Commandments of God. She loves God's Law because of what it is (an expression of His holy nature) and what it does (show us our need for mercy). She isn't a worker of lawlessness. [taken from WotM]

We must keep in mind some of these prophecies were listed 1000 years before it happened. Logic will tell you that the Bible is supernatural unless you want to fulfill another prophecy of the Bible, by denying Him and His truth. (Proverbs 30:9, 2 Timothy 2:12, 2 Timothy 3:1-5, Titus 1:16, 2 Peter 2:1, Jude 1:4)

bit.ly/ShadowPro

Scientific Consensus?

Objections to Intelligent Design continued from a previous post

ID Violates the Scientific Consensus

Scientific consensus is highly problematic because it has been notoriously unreliable. For example in 1960 geosynclinal theory was the consensus explanation for mountain formation. It was "one of the great unifying principals of geology" according to authors of 'Geological Evolution of North America.' Geosynclinal theory was utterly abandoned after ten years of declaration and replaced with plate tectonics.

Even in a recent conversation it was get_education who poignantly said: "Actually, all scientific theories are "dubious" in the sense that further data might contradict the current theories, and thus we would have to come to different conclusions."

To which Dr. Van der Breggen complemented it with: "I think that we can agree that we should let a scientific investigation of the evidence of the world arbitrate our disagreement and that we should let the investigation do so unfettered by either an atheistic or theistic philosophy which might unfairly force our conclusions one way or the other."

Darwininism, today, is touted so widely as fact. We need to understand though that Darwin's theory at the start of the twentieth century was rejected by most all biologists. In the 1930's Darwinism revived when a handful of scientists merged Darwin's theory with Mendelian genetics, now known as Neo-Darwinism.

We can all agree that Darwinism remains the scientific consensus, but that consensus is shrinking. Dissent from Darwinism continues to grow in the scientific population. More would sign the list if their livelihood and reasearch would not be threatened by challenging Darwinism.

Michael Crichton, Medical Doctor, said it best: "I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. "

Intelligent Design/Evolution Debate

Let's kick this year off right with a knock down drag out fight between truth and perceived truth. We will let this 8 part debate be the opener.

ID Proponents: William F. Buckley Jr., Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe, and David Berlinski.

Evolutionist: Barry Lynn, Eugenie C. Scott, Michael Ruse, and Kenneth Miller.

I am not a huge fan of this debate and it did go on tangents at times. I will say I enjoyed Berlinski and his confident arguments. Since he is not a Christian no one can claim his "Christian Propaganda". I was amazed that Scott said that ICR frustrated her because they always claim that (x) didn't happen and it then takes much longer to explain that (x) did happen. So her frustrations are that we don't take it on faith of mankind about evilution, plus that is the very same thing done by atheists and (x), in that case, is God. At least the sides do seem to be balanced where you have a professing Christian who believes in evolution (Lynn) and a non believer who rejects evolution (Berlinski).



Since I am not satisfied with the results of the closing arguments, and since this is my arena, I will allow Berlinski an additional 5 minutes as a closing:

Once again atheists have sought to silence christian opinions by taking down this video. Ah, who will have the last word? ...God.

This clip was part of a 22 part interview that I recommend as part of a journey towards truth.

tinyurl.com/IDFalsifier

Prince Caspian and Exceeded Expectations

I was contemplating a way to introduce a Narnia Story witnessing website since the Prince Caspian Blu-ray came out. Then our good friend Dr. Hendrik van der Breggen, who wrote that great article "Reasonable Skepticism about Radical Skepticism", added an article to his blog that exceeded all expectations that I had about just highlighting a website.

The doctor included evolution into the post that I found brilliant on his blog called Apologia. The post of his was so well done I suggest you go read it directly since I could not do it's proper justice to emulate the argument here without a shameless c/p.

I would love to hear the evolution promoters at this blog opinions on his article. In my opinion it's just another two points in the slam debunk that has been made about evolution. How much of a pummeling are you going to take before your logic kicks in?

Here’s the argument made by C. S. Lewis (modified by University of Notre Dame philosopher Alvin Plantinga)"Evolutionary theory on the assumption of an unguided, unplanned process of genetic mutation and natural selection guarantees at most that we behave in ways conducive to immediate survival."

So how does one explain how we seek to know much, much more than what’s required for mere immediate survival? Time, effort, and energy is being spent way beyond an atheistic evolutionary theory. If it "is true, then our beliefs about logic (beyond rudimentary logic) and mathematics and science—especially deep scientific theories—should be, very probably, dubious."

In quoting Lewis, Dr. Van der Breggen slams it home with this nugget: "But now an epistemological (knowledge) problem arises for atheistic evolution: It is a deep scientific theory, which, if true, very probably shouldn’t be believed to be true.

Go figure."

Plus, that Narnia Story website that I wanted to to highlight is appropriately called NarniaStory.com I suggest you listen to it before the drunks are on the road tonight. This may be your last chance. Stay safe!

The Jesus Project

The Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion (CSER) is a research division of the Council for Secular Humanism and endeavored to do the Jesus Project. Someone named Charlie on a blog said about the project "As if any group sponsored by the CFI -- notorious atheist apologetics -- can be trusted to deliver accurate, balanced, and even remotely unbiased conclusions." Never the less, they claim a secular approach/viewpoint to religion. Their mission, or I would say mantra, is to promote that nature is all there is and all basic truths are truths of nature. Keep in mind that "Science is an attempt to understand the natural world in a natural way. Science then in that sense is restricted to natural explanations for natural phenomena. If a natural explanation is inadequate then science stops." (D’Souza)

I am not sure how many have heard of the endeavor to find the truth that is Jesus. Although, in review of its predecessor called The Jesus Seminar, I will not be holding my breath. The "seminar" was a colossal fail. The Christian Arsenal accurately depicted the Jesus Seminar as a tool of Satan, meant to undermine Biblical beliefs. What else could be the purpose of it, I would ask?

The Jesus Project claims a different approach, but how different could it be with the same data and the same secular worldview? I digress. They claim that they are "the first methodologically agnostic approach to the question of Jesus’ historical existence." This description did spark my attention since I have had many conversations with people asking for this exact thing, that the events can be extra biblically corroborated. Although, it does beg the question as to starting with doubt in scripture. I am only 'curious' as to the results, and will be pleasantly surprised for confirmation of the Bible. If they conclude that there indeed was a Jesus and that Jesus was God himself, would it sway anyone to reconsider the Bible?

I do believe that Atheists would make some the strongest Christians, if there is such a thing, once convinced/enlightened. I denied Christ for years until that very special time in my life. Since Atheists are looking for evidence, would a positive conclusion as to the validity of the Bible's teachings from this project suffice as ample empirical evidence? In the past, the case was made that understanding through the intellect is a futile endeavor, but I wonder would this get Atheists to rethink the subject?

So when they admit that Scriptures are reliable and trustworthy historical documents and the Bible is a valid historical record then we can go to the next point, realizing that Jesus Christ claims to be the unique Son of God and that He bases this claim on His forthcoming resurrection from the dead.

Next, we examine the evidence for the resurrection contained in this historic document and find that the arguments overwhelmingly support the contention that Christ has risen from the dead. If this is true, then He is the unique Son of God as He claimed to be. If He is indeed God, then He speaks with authority on all matters.

Since Jesus considered the Old Testament to be the Word of God (Matthew 15:1-4, 5:17, 18) and promised His disciples, who either wrote or had control over the writing of the New Testament books, that the Holy Spirit would bring all things back to their remembrance (John 14:26), therefore we can insist, with sound and accurate logic, that the Bible is God's Word. This is not circular reasoning. It is establishing certain facts and basing conclusions on the sound, logical outcome of these facts. The case for Christianity can be established by ordinary means of historical investigation.

If you must trust man for evidence of the Bible, you will have to wait four more years for the results of the Jesus Project. So what do you do until then? All I ask is that you don't die before the findings. Have a safe New Year!

We Are Born Evil!

We all are wretched and evil and without God we would have an unlivable world. This is for the simple fact that "All Men Are Born Evil."



"When the Lord smelled the pleasing aroma,  He said to Himself, “I will never again curse the ground  because of man, even though man’s inclination is evil from his youth.  And I will never again strike down every living thing as I have done." ~ Genius 8:21

Ray has an analogy: "A little girl was once watching a sheep eat grass and thought how white it looked against the green background. But when it began to snow she thought, "That sheep now looks dirty against the white snow!" It was the same sheep, but with a different background. When we compare ourselves to man's standard we look pretty clean, but when we compare ourselves to the pure snow-white righteousness of God's standard—His Law, we can see ourselves in truth, that we are unclean in His sight. That Law is the holy standard by which humanity will be judged on Judgment Day."


bit.ly/BornEvil

Debunking Atheists Still

So here we are, towards the end of the year and I am getting slightly sentimental. As for Debunking Atheists, we have seen some friendships blossom, and we have seen a great deal of spirited discussions. Humbly, I have learned quite a bit about Atheists. We also had some sacrifices along the way to get God's Word out.

In the past 6 months we had over 100 posts with many comments, one thread with 1000+ comments. We have welcomed close to 11,000 visitors all over the world with over 25,500 posts viewed. One thing that I have learned from this little experiment is, that I love atheists more then ever. I want nothing more for people to understand what is the cost of turning away from God. So, what's the real purpose of the Debunking Atheists blog? Well...



Have a wonderful Christmas everyone and Blessings from the Marvin Family.

Silly Atheistic Elitist Logic

My friend Josh and I had a nice discussion about the future. He was teasing me because I had so many children and linked to this video:

Here is the beginning of the movie, that will probably be taken down soon. Rated R, bad language and Adult subject matter:



I posed the question, "How can someone believe in evolution if we're seeing humans becoming dumber?" in relationship to the clip. "Especially since you believe we have been around for 100,000 years. We must of really been smart that many years ago."

Josh said that "we are working opposite of evolution because we are VIOLATING nature by being human" and that "Man DOES have influence, but the laws are the same what man does does not always benefit nature or mankind, but the long run, nature's laws win."

So according to the movie "the dumb" are the predominate species. They are the ones that were thrown back into the proverbial ocean as the Heike Crab (because of the superstition that Japanese fisherman had about it looking like a Samurai's face.)

Josh said that "the "smart" people have put their minds and work to themselves and not considered the survival of mankind as an importance." Josh also threw out this gem during the conversation "[I]f we were a responsible society, we'd embrace eugenics, and encourage self reliance, and not feed those who can't feed themselves. Hitler knew this damn well"

I concluded with "future smart people will be dumb by default since they failed to evolve and maintain heritage" and "so then the smart people of today are the dumbest of tomorrow" The Ignotheists, Atheist "intellects", portrayed in this video are in fact the not so smart ones. If evolution is truth (we all know the contrary) then, as in eugenics, to render one self's genetic line extinct is not very smart, in the evolutionary model that is. So then "smart" is subjective, and its the "dumb ones" that are portrayed in this video that are the true smart ones.

To which Josh agreed

Psychological Questionnaire

Andrew highlighted a personality test that I found interesting. Patty took this earlier at her work and I found it uncanny how accurate it was pointing her personality out by just a few questions. During the conversation with Andrew, I also was considering how interesting it would be to understand each others personalities, if you feel comfortable to share that is. This may be some horoscope Ouija thing so I appologize, if it is, to my Christian friends but it may be fun. To be accurate, take the test once and give that result, as I have. You can tell me if you agree with the results or not. So to pave the way of ridicule and embarrassment I will share my scores.

First here is the test:



Second Here is how I scored:

I faired as a ENTJ

Extraverted	Intuitive	Thinking	Judging
Strength of the preferences %
33	50	12	6

I did chuckle at the trademark:

"TRADEMARK: -- "I'm really sorry you have to die." (I realize this is an overstatement. However, most Fs and other gentle souls usually chuckle knowingly at this description.)"

They called it the Fieldmarshal

Career choices: Management in Business or Education, Military Education, Politics, Law, Counseling, Engineering, Industrial Management & Manufacturing Management, High School Education, Computer Programming.

Famous people with same traits: Napoleon, Franklin D. Roosevelt , Dave Letterman, Sean Connery, Jim Carrey, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Carl Sagan.

WIKI had some interesting things about it. Now, I think it would be a fascinating study to find out how many of your profiles relates to my own. It explains the type of relationships for ENTJs. Some people I get along with and some I buck horns with. So lets see if this typology test is accurate or not. Here I stand, naked before you.

Evolution(ists) gets OWNED!!!

Evolution is refuted by Evolutionists.



Also, here is a case built against Evolution:

The Great Debate, Christianity vs. Atheism

For some of you that enjoy the country life (dial up), you can click this link to download the mp3.

Since "Rock Star" Sye TenBruggencate started me into presuppositionalism and Sye admitted this debate is what got him into presuppositional apologetics, I figure it would be fitting to include this as my 100th post!

UPDATE: Since the post editor counted drafts as a post I was under the assumption that this was my 100th post but since I had a couple of drafts working I forgot to discount those. I was at around 95th post at this time but am past 100 by now so it was merely a premature celebration. Moving on.

Enjoy, with fear. (Job 4:14, Psalm 2:11, Psalm 55:5, 1 Corinthians 2:3, 2 Corinthians 7:15, Ephesians 6:5)

All the glory to God! Please help us Lord. Save these souls!

tinyurl.com/cny8q4

Ignotheists

Out of 60 people that answered the poll, the results were different then I thought it would be.

Have you, as an atheist, read the entire Bible cover to cover?

37 said yes they have read the Bible cover to cover. That is admirable and what I would expect from someone debating against Christianity. These atheists are well informed as to the subject matter. They took the time to educate themselves in dealing with the subjects of Salvation and life after death. It's commendable they, at the very least, were inquisitive about salvation.

It may have been because of their upbringing but they indeed searched for truth in the Bible. From the source, they sought to answer life's questions; Not ones like "Are those cookies made with real Girl Scouts?" or "If drinking and driving is illegal, why do bars have parking lots?" Or more perplexing ones like "Can atheists get insurance for acts of God?" but the real big questions of life such as: Why is there something rather than nothing? How Do You Explain Human Nature? What Happens after Death? and How Do You Determine Right and Wrong?

These questions, and many more, are addressed in the Holy Bible and can give people a mere glimpse of the true majesty of God. Written by God and penned by Man, the Bible was created as a way to communicate to us Salvation, even after all these many thousands of years. The Bible is alive even to this very day.

And that brings us to tonight's word: Ignotheists. Three of you said "No" and 20 of you said they read "Parts, but never cover to cover" which to me is the biggest surprise. It means that 30% of you are ignorant of Christianity and the Bible. Basically you are what I call ignorant [a]theists or Ignotheists.

So, in the future, if you haven't read the Bible then you cannot refer to yourselves as atheists anymore because you are basing your beliefs on very little information.

Even though a suicidal decision was made, any true atheist would, at least, do the research to make such a important decision about salvation. Anyone not willing to take the time to do the research is called an Ignotheist. And that's tonight's word.

tinyurl.com/ignotheists

Debunking Atheism

On the very same day that I started this blog June 22, 2008, someone named Bruce bought the domain debunkingatheism.com. I look forward to seeing some great things coming from the website. For now they have a static page that states a case. Here it is in its entirety:

Darwin said: "...we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator," (Origin of Species, p488)


Unintelligent Evolution Debunked in <400 Words

There is no proven scientific principle, or testable evidence, or even common sense, that supports dumb, blind, un-intelligence making anything intelligent. This is also useless for making testable predictions.

Darwin said: "Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man?" (Origin of Species, p. 188)

1. The scientific process was invented by and depends on intelligence. Testable, uncontradicted evidence, in diverse areas of life, confirm that it takes intelligence to make something intelligent.

"...all physical theories...break down at the beginning of the universe."
-- Stephen Hawking.

2. Mathematical infinity, singularities, and the "Big Bang" defy the laws of nature, showing scientifically that super-natural qualities, like God's infinite nature, can exist.

3. A creator/designer/lawmaker is not intrinsically detectable when observing their design. Thus, one can't use an undetected Creator to disprove a Creator.

4. All laws, man-made or otherwise, have common properties: They cause physical regularity. Thus, since man is made of "dust" and thus is part of the natural process, man's creative/lawmaking abilities can be tested in determining the origin of the universe.

New hypotheses/proposed laws: a) Something intelligent is caused by something intelligent, b) Laws are made by an intelligent lawmaker, c) Laws are enforced/maintained by a law enforcer, d) Processes and machines have a designer, e) Designers/lawmakers/enforcers are not intrinsically detectable.

These principles have never been contradicted, apply universally, and are always useful for making predictions.

Thus, since intelligence, laws, machines, and processes are found in the universe, and we don't detect a Designer, it is logical and predictable that there is an intelligent Creator. And a super-natural Creator/Lawmaker/Enforcer would be necessary to limit and maintain our natural space-time to cause the laws of nature to exist. By definition, random chance cannot create a single reasonable pattern without intelligently applied limitations/laws.

Conclusion: There is no testable evidence that a Creator was not needed to make evolution or the laws of nature, etc. Therefore, unintelligent evolution and faith in atheism are blind assumptions with no scientific basis. A plethora of diverse, uncontradicted, testable evidence demonstrates that God is logical and a super-natural Creator is necessary for the creation and laws of the universe. The Bible has the only scientifically accurate creation account. We should thank God for creating us and our universe, and seek to serve Him daily.


Fred Hoyle said: "there is a good deal of cosmology in the Bible." (The Nature of the Universe, p.109.)

Are You A Good Person?

Plus, there is an update. Its much worse! http://bit.ly/OneLittleLie

Also, translated to:

• Spanish
  
• French
  
• Russian

bit.ly/Goodperson

Imagining the Tenth Dimension

Click picture for video

Whateverman said: "As a tangent, check out this short video. It's a really interesting way to help you envision what 10 dimensional space is actually like.

I've often felt that if fundamentalists would actually take the time to understand what we know (or maybe just our ideas) about space and time, they wouldn't keep using the term "naturalism" as a [pejorative]"

I responded with: Wem,

Thanks for the 10 dimension explanation link. I found it an interesting way of explaining such a complex hypothesis (theorem?).

Also, if you think about it, this makes perfect sense that God can actually be Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent with 10 dimensions at His disposal. You see, science will reveal God if He doesn't first.

Does this also show the importance of free will? Without it, we wouldn't have any need for additional dimensions (5th). The possibilities of different situations simultaneously would be irrelevant without free will. So even the dimensions would fall apart without it. We can kind of understand why God gave us free will. He knew we would choose evil but it was necessary for the universe to work properly. Deep stuff!

Great Job, dude!

Paul Washer - Shocking Message

I beg every single one of you to listen to this message. This is one of the best and most powerful Biblical messages that I have ever, ever, heard. He is actually speaking the truth and that is exactly what we all need, and hopefully want, to hear. It is a hour long, but it will be the best hour you have ever spent in your life. At the time he was talking to a Southern Baptist Church youth group and needless to say he was never invited back again.

Many of the same points and questions atheists ask are reiterated and addressed in what Washer is talking about. Please stop for a moment, even if it is the one last time, ask God to show you the truth before you watch this. Open your mind and ask God to convict your heart, if He truly exists. Strap in folks we are going for a very bumpy ride!

Here is the link to the video, in case it gets choppy on you. Sometimes its best to go right to YouTube for it.



If that is not enough and you hunger for more then here is an 8 part sermon that angered many.

Truly Saved, Finally!

Bart: "I have done that in my past with sincerity and there was no revelation of the existence of God. So where do you search for God?"

It begins in His Word. (John 14:21)

Now, I don't know you at all. So this is me sharing what I have observed and helped this hypothesis of mine.

There is something I noticed with many atheists, proclaiming Christians and false converts. They have one thing in common and this might have been you. It was me for many years, dare I even say 15 years, I thought I was a Christian. I received the word as many false converts with pure gladness. I was so happy to be(come) a Christian I went to church and volunteered and was very involved. The entire time I was false, sinned occasionally but that was OK, God was so forgiving. He wouldn't care, for example, that I went out Fridays to the clubs with the intention to fornicate. He loves me and I love Him. Happy, happy, joy, joy!

Flash ahead to a real dark place I was in. It was then I realized that I actually was a false convert all those years, that I was playing a Christian. Once I realized that fact, I was frozen. I was shaken to my core and I was actually afraid of God, the real kind of fear. (Proverbs 1:7; Proverbs 9:10)

I was a mess, broken, spent, and truly lost all over again. God allowed me to realize what a wretch I truly am. I approached God again but this time a very fragile, crushed, and a broken man. (Psalm 34:18;Psalm 51:17)

Words will never do the experience justice. An indication that I look for now a days isn't the happy story of becoming a Christian, its the dark and broken heart that I look for.

The other day I read something I could relate to:

"God never clothes men until He has first stripped them, nor does He quicken them by the gospel till first they are slain by the Law. When you meet with persons in whom there is no trace of conviction of sin, you may be quite sure that they have not been wrought upon by the Holy Spirit; for 'when He is come, He will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment.'" (Charles Spurgeon)

Science would have a hard time measuring the evidence that I now have in referenced to God. I am here to tell you that these days I know God exists and he has saved me once and for all and my name is actually written in the book of life and I am in awe daily because of it.

Thoughts are immaterial, emotions are immaterial, the mind is immaterial, none of them can be seen or observed, the lover experiencing the feelings of love to his loved one, they cannot be proven by science, only the lover can know that feeling that they are experiencing.

They are all immaterial just like the laws of logic, yet we do not question their existence just because we do not see them.

Once you experience God (and his love) it will be impossible to go backwards. You are changed, you are born again. Any truly saved Christian will tell you this. Just a mere 2-3 years ago I was saved and I experienced God.

If you want a good example of how a man responds to being soundly saved listen to Paul Washer's testimony

Scientific Explanation?

I liked what D’Souza said about atheists trying to establish science as the the only source of truth and access to reality. They go far as to claim that everything outside of science is irrelevant and even absurd. It's this same philosophy that has totally infiltrated our school systems.

Science, indeed, gives us pretty good explanation as to how things work. Science though, give explanations at one level while ignoring explanations on another level.

For example, there is a pot of water on the stove. If someone to pose a question "Why is this water boiling?"

The scientific answer would go something like this: The water is boiling because the temperature is excess of a hundred degrees, when that happens it has an effect on the molecules, and those molecules begin to react in a certain way and that's why the water is boiling. And that is a perfectly good scientific explanation.

But here is another explanation as to why the water is boiling, Because Dan wants to have a cup of tea. That is an explanation on a different level then a scientific explanation and yet it is completely valid and moreover, the scientific explanation itself, would be incomprehensible if you didn't put into the context as to why the pot got on the stove in the first place, because Dan is trying to make himself some tea. That's why the set of events have been set into motion that cannot be described scientifically.

So what we illustrate by this example is the scientific explanation is true as far as it goes but it doesn't go all that far. It doesn't give a full account of the phenomenon at hand. When we are looking at the big questions that we face in life. Why do we have a universe? How did we get life out of non-life? Why do we have consciousness, morality?

What's the scientific explanation as to why we have a universe?

"We don't know the answer to that one."

What is the evolutionary or scientific explanation for how we got life, not how we got life form 'A' from life form 'B', but how we got life in the first place?

"We are working on that one we really don't know."

What about consciousness, if you think of human consciousness, you have all typed of living creatures, bacteria, amoebas and so on they are living, but they are not conscious, what is the evolutionary benefit to consciousness? Consciousness takes a lot out of us, a lot of the energy of the living animal is devoted to the brain and consciousness, why do we need it? What adaptive advantage does it confer?

"We have absolutely no idea."

So the point is, in some of these domains science is trying to figure it out and in other domains the question itself lies outside the boundaries of science. In both case the new atheist, in some sense, is trying to claim for science far more then science can actually deliver.

D’Souza goes on to say "Science is an attempt to understand the natural world in a natural way. Science then in that sense is restricted to natural explanations for natural phenomena. If a natural explanation is inadequate then science stops."

Atheists keep saying "you believe based on absolutely no evidence that there is an after life"

D’Souza responds "you believe based on absolutely no evidence that there is no after life."

No one has any scientific knowledge about whether there is an afterlife. Once we are at death the scientific explanation is at an end. There is no empirical test that we can perform that can tell us whether there is an afterlife , or not.

We both don't 'know' on the bases of faith. There is no scientific high horse that atheists can sit on.

Is there scientific proof of God?

No, because science is limited to the provinces of natural explanations. But there are things in science that can legitimately point beyond science to provinces of metaphysics.

For example, almost all of science is based upon the question that every effect has a cause. Science asks what is that cause. We have a material object, the Universe, and the universe has a beginning but the question is does it require a cause, if it has a cause is it a natural cause or a supernatural cause?

It turns out the natural cause is not a very good explanation because the universe itself includes all of nature so if your saying that nature had a natural cause you are almost saying that nature caused itself out of non-nature. There was once no nature and then nature produced nature itself? Seems far fetched.

One can draw legitimate and reasonable inferences out of Science that it is pointing to something bigger, A Creator. But I don't think there is any scientific proof in the sense."

Einstein Was Not An Atheist!

The History channel had a very interesting program about Einstein last night that shed some light on the man. I remembered Ray doing a section on Einstein, in the third season of the Way of the Master series, so I though I would share. We all should heed to the words of this very intelligent man, we should listen to Einstein also.

Belief System of Atheism

A Wake-up Call to Christians.

"Christianity is under attack over the world. In secular school, on television, on radio, in literature, etc., Christianity is increasingly insulted and dismissed as an antiquated philosophy." (CARM)

I just read an article that, admittedly, angered me slightly. We need to realize that atheists are trying to censor everyone that contradicts their belief system. In a sense, pushing their religion over others.

Granted this article is from Canada but if this trend/mindset continues we all will see a vast eradication of God and the new world order and the religion of atheism will rein. Do we really want to be the generation that allows this to happen?

Rob Breakenridge with the Calgary Herold writes:

What's turned this speech into a public controversy is the push by a group of atheists at the U of A to remove a line from the traditional convocation speech, which urges grads to use their degrees for "the glory of God and the honour of your country."

Breakenridge, biased in his beliefs, continues:

Moreover, if the atheists really were trying to "force their views" then they wouldn't be asking for words to be dropped from the speech, they'd be asking for words to be changed: "emptiness" instead of "glory", or something to that end.

Atheism is a belief -- specifically unbelief -- that is as deserving of protection under freedom of religion as any other belief.

This is pure garbage. If atheists believe in "no God" and they remove "God" (from the publics eye) they are indeed promoting one religion of "no God" or belief system over another. Here in the states Atheism is, in fact a religion, and I perfectly agree that they should be allowed to worship whomever they wish, even if it is themselves. The point of all this is to realize one fatal flaw with this subject and article.

Atheism is a belief in the denial of God. So if they get there wish and eradicate the word "God" in schools and government then their agenda of 'no God' wins! The new religion will be atheism throughout the lands. Taking out prayer in schools or not allowing "God" in science or public area's are all pushing the agenda and religion of Atheism.

Remember what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr said:

"Christians should not be a thermometers that merely record and reflect the temperature of popular opinion.

Christians should be like thermostats, responsible for transforming and setting the temperature or standards of society" (Thank God free at last!)

We are letting Doctor King and most of all, God, down. Unite, fight, and never give up proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ!

Who cares if atheists want us to bow to their god of self, like satanists (CoS). Their god of this world has already been defeated by our Lord Jesus Christ!

In our military USMJ: "899. ART. 99. 'MISBEHAVIOR BEFORE THE ENEMY,' the penalty of deserting your post during a war time situation is "death". If you haven't noticed, we are indeed in a spiritual war. (Ephesians 6:12)

So why are we bowing to the wishes of atheists? Does God want us to be PC or bold? (Hebrews 13:6) Is that what we are commanded to do by God? We are better then this (Ephesians 2:2), (1 John 4:4-6). We are to be soldiers in Christ, so please act accordingly! Never desert your post! Never cease!

Flames of Judgment

The story is told of pioneers who were making their way across one of the central states to a distant place that had been opened up for homesteading. They traveled in covered wagons drawn by oxen, and progress was necessarily slow.

One day they were horrified to note a long line of smoke in the west, stretching for miles across the prairie, and soon it was evident that the dried grass was burning fiercely and coming toward them rapidly.

They had crossed a river the day before, but it would be impossible to go back to that before the flames would be upon them. One man only seemed to have understanding as to what could be done. He gave the command to set fire to the grass behind them. Then, when a space was burned over, the whole company moved back upon it.

As the flames roared on toward them from the west, a little girl cried out in terror, "Are you sure we shall not all be burned up?" The leader replied, "My child, the flames cannot reach us here, for we are standing where the fire has been!"

What a picture of the believer, who is safe in Christ! "On Him Almighty vengeance fell, which would have sunk a world to Hell. He bore it for a chosen race, And thus becomes our Hiding Place."

The fires of God's judgment burned themselves out on Him, and all who are in Christ are safe forever, for they are now standing where the fire has been. (Sermon Illustrations)

ID is Inherently Religious

Objections to Intelligent Design continued from a previous post

ID is Inherently Religious, Not Scientific

This should be voted the most common tactic. As noted earlier, ID studies pattern in nature that are best explained as the results of intelligence. Many special or specific sciences already study such patterns and draw design inferences. Examples include forensic science (did that person die of natural causes, or was there foul play?) and archaeology (Arrowhead or rock?). It is scientifically legitimate to recognize the work of an intelligent agent, even if that agent is unknown, as it often the case in archaeology.

The science of design do not apply merely to human designers either. Beavers, for instance, build dams that we recognize as designed. Design need not be restricted to Earth. SETI, as seen in the movie Contact, is looking for intelligent aliens. The working assumption of SETI is that we can distinguish an intelligently produced signal from random radio noise.

Critics discount ID because its designer is supposed to be unobservable. However, in science we have a "many-worlds hypothesis" to discount how finely tuned the laws of physics are to allow for the emergence and sustenance of life. If we are only one of many universes then it shouldn't surprise us that we find ourselves in a universe uniquely crafted for our existence. The existence of multiple universes has never been observed, in fact, they are such that they can never be observed! Does this mean the many-worlds hypothesis is rendered unscientific? Of course not. Observability is therefore not a necessary condition for an explanation to be scientific; macroevolution has never been observed.

Another exclusion of ID from science is that science only deals with what is repeatable, and nature's designs are unrepeatable. Is Big Bang or origin of life repeatable? Science has no clue how to repeat either of these events in a lab; yet they are clearly within the realm of science. If repeatability is considered a necessary condition for science, then disciplines such as archaeology, anthropology, cosmology, and paleontology must be excluded from science as soon as they discover some unique artifact or feature of nature. Since those disciplines are included within the realm of science despite their unrepeatability, ID also must be included.

Faith in Christ, is for everyone's salvation and a creation explanation. Explanations of creation are in the Bible and the purpose is to glorify Him. Forced into science? Who cares, get saved!

ID, on the other hand, does try to find design within science and should be allowed to play! ID only seeks to identify a "design of things" within nature. That is not asking for too much.

ID does not have to prove it is a science-it already is. Richard Dawkins, surprisingly, agrees, "the presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." (RD, The God Delusion, 58-59)

UPDATE: For more information on Intelligent Design here are some resources:
Access Research Network
Answers Research Journal
ID Network
IDEA
Institute for Creation Research
Intelligent Design
International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design

ID is Creationism in a Cheap Tuxedo

Objections to Intelligent Design continued from a previous post

ID is Creationism in a Cheap Tuxedo

Why do they say this? To try to discredit it. They believe that creationism has no intellectual credibility. This is why people, like some atheists here, parrot a professor at University of Kansas named Krishtalka.

ID is often confused with Creation Science (not an oxymoron), but they are indeed quite different. Rather then beginning with some particular interpretation of Genesis (as young-earth and old-earth creationists typically do), ID begins with investigating the natural world. ID looks for patterns in nature that are best explained as the product of intelligence. Given what the world reveals about itself, ID proponents reason that a designing intelligence best explains certain patterns in nature. This is not to be confused with my own view of Biblical Creationism.

The great difference between ID and Creation Science, then, is that ID relies not on prior assumptions about divine activity in the world, but on methods developed within the scientific population for recognizing intelligence. Even Judge Jones in the Kitzmiller v Dover trial recognized that ID proponents do not base their theory on "the Book of Genesis," "a young earth," or "a catastrophic Noachic flood."

Contrasting Religions

Evolution is the "descent from a common ancestor" model so when you ask people "Do you believe your ancestors were fish, as evolution teaches?" Or, "Are you a mutated rodent-like creature?" Fewer people would be more inclined to answer, "Yes!" Despite several generations now of aggressive evolution-only teaching in the Public School classroom, most people just know that they didn't come from a fish or a rodent or a starfish. They can choose to believe they have an animal ancestry, but few do. It just isn't believable. The other explanation for origins is not only more believable, it's more appealing.

Dr Michael Ruse, an eloquent spokesman for evolution today, has admitted:

"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more then mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion. A full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, (no such thing) but I must admit that in this one complaint...the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today."(1)

Christianity has its God and its revealed truth. It tells us our origins, who we are, where we came from, the meaning of life, and where we're going after we die.
It tells us how to live and how to make life decisions along the way. Created in the image of God, we have great worth in His eyes, and great standing before Him as we appropriate His gift of redemption, a great destiny to perform on earth, and life with our loving and righteous Creator/Savior after death.

Evolution answers these same questions differently. We are and come from the universe's chemicals that have self-organized into unlikely forms over eons of time. Single-celled life transformed itself into higher forms until finally the human animal came along. As higher animals, we have incorporated animal behavior into societal norms and even "religious" beliefs. The only true meaning to life is survival and reproduction, and life's highest goal is to pass on one's genes more efficiently than others. After life, we simply cease to exist.

As constitutional attorney Wendell Bird has pointed out: "Evolution is at least as religious as creation, and creation is at least as scientific as evolution." Creation is also more believable. (John D Morris, PhD)

----
1. Ruse, Michael. Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians. National Post, May 13, 2000,B-3

ID is a Science-Stopper

Objections to Intelligent Design continued from a previous post

ID is a Science-Stopper

Science writer Michael Shermer said "The point of the ID movement is not to expand scientific understanding-it is to shut it down"

The truth, however, is just the opposite. By rigidly excluding ID from science, Darwinists themselves impede scientific progress. Consider the embarrassing label of "junk DNA." The word "junk" suggests that useless portions of DNA have arisen together through a blind, unguided process of evolution. Evolutionary theorists thus have come to regard only a small portion of DNA as functional. By contrast, if DNA is the product of design, we would expect much of it to be functional.

Current research indicates that much of what previously termed "junk DNA" is now known to have function. In a recent Newsweek article, Mary Carmichael describes the transformation in how DNA is understood: "Researchers have realized that this forgotten part of the genome is, in fact, profoundly important. It contains the machinery that flips the switches, manipulating much of the rest of the genome...Genes make up only 1.2 percent of our DNA. The rest of the DNA, once called "junk DNA" was thought to be filler. Recent finds prove otherwise"

I would add even vestigial organs to this list also. It means total lost of an organs original function. Saying it still has function negate the use of the word.

Take the appendix in humans as a fine example, evolution scientists calls it a vestigial organ. Most evolution scientist, even this Dawkins dude, still believe the old story that the appendix is some kind of useless leftover from our ape-like ancestry. It's incredible that this myth continues to be spread. Even the encyclopedia sates "The appendix doesn't serve any useful purpose as a digestive organ in humans, and it is believed to be gradually disappearing in the human species over evolutionary time." (New Encyclopedia Britannica, 1:491, 1997)

Newest medical textbook, on the other hand, present the known function of this organ. For example, the appendix has a role to play in our immune system. This has left countless of people scared, and unable to fight infections, including my own Dad. Many evolutionists continue to cling to outdated and wrong information in their attempt to persuade you that evolution is true. They also claim that there are other so called "useless" body parts that are "left over."

Design thus encourages science to look for deeper insight into nature, whereas Darwinian evolution discourages it. The criticism that design stifles scientific progress is therefore mistaken. The criticism applies more readily to Darwinism then design.

Personal Invitation

I just received an email that I thought all of you would be interested in. It's fitting to the conversations that I have been having from the last post. I received this email just moments after I posted this comment:

How do you justify your faith to a world that wants to explain it away? This is part of the New Atheist movement, which is growing more visible and vocal.

Anti-Christian rhetoric is increasing, and atheistic agenda is penetrating all areas of our society.

New York Times best-selling author Dinesh D’Souza welcomes your questions on atheism, agnosticism, apologetics, and more. He will address questions in his upcoming Virtual Book Tour, and this is your chance to register for this FREE event. D’Souza takes tough questions head-on when he debates atheists, so GO AHEAD, submit your question, and register for this Virtual Book Tour—an online, live event to hear Dinesh answer significant questions about Christianity

Author of What's So Great About Christianity is inviting questions. A Live 60-70 minutes Teleseminar Tuesday, November 18, 2008 (8 pm Eastern, 7 pm Central, 5 pm Pacific)

This should be interesting and I invite all of you to post questions and listen in HERE

So what questions should we ask? I think I will ask about the "perceived" barbaric situations in the Bible that turns away people.