Sincerity towards Hard Hearts

Y'all do understand we are here to help, not hurt right? Do you reject the sincerity from believers that care enough about you to spend the time to talk to you to get you to really understand the fate of all of us? I was reading the sincerity of a guy writing to an atheist and I enjoyed what was written so much I just wanted to share it with all of you:

"I really, truly know and understand where you are coming from, before I was saved, I thought many of the thoughts you do. I was more of an agnostic than an atheist, I believed that there "may" be a god, but really had no clue. I believed in the theory of evolution, not so much because I had examined the claims, but because it was what I was taught to be true. If you want to pass biology you fill in the little choice box that the teacher says should be filled in, right?

Months before God saved me and opened my eyes to the truth, I lived a, well, sordid life, I not only thought sinful thoughts, I lived many of them out, I was "bad", really bad, but the funny thing I thought I was a pretty "good" guy deep down, I just wanted to live my own life, be in control of me. I didn't hear Ray or any other preacher, I actually heard some evolution scientist on some radio show talk about Carl Sagan and I started looking into some of his research, then it led me to more, and more, until I came across some site about prophecy and theories about Jesus Christ and the whole bit, the did He exist debate, I think you know what I mean. Anyway I decided, if what Jesus claims is wrong then Christianity is a lie, but if what He claims is true, then I have some serious thinking to do. That day I picked up a bible, of which I had only read a handful of verses ever before in my life, and started reading the new testament. I was surprised, it was nothing like what the movies portrayed, it was more detailed about His life, He clearly claims to be God, the God, the ONLY God, well, if this, Jesus is God then what He says better line up with what I know to be true, evolution, what I think is right and wrong, and He had better let me control my own life. Well, what I read was the complete opposite of what I thought was true.

I was quite angry at the ideas in the bible, really I was stunned at the claims. No way, this can't be true, if it is, then I've been living a lie, the world is deceived and we are all headed for Hell. I mean this IS what the bible teaches, isn't it?

Well that's what I thought it taught. Like many who post here, I thought God was some cosmic meany, I mean why create us, why let all this evil just happen, and why kill you only Son? I didn't "really" understand the bible, I just read it and picked out things that I didn't agree with, or things that made me look bad, I didn't ask why. When I did start asking why, and really asking God, why, then He started answering. Not in voices, or visions, but as I read and reread it started making sense.

Life really isn't about me, except in my own head, it's called pride. I started to see that this God who claims to have created everything is holy, doesn't change, righteous, and frighteningly enough, JUST! I listened to a couple preachers on the internet, and they helped me understand that it is not Gods will that I go to Hell, and then explained my sin, Gods holiness, and then about Jesus Christ. And this is what I understood. God is Lord, Jesus is God, God created us in His image to glorify Him, we sinned, we keep sinning, and living for self or other people, not Him, He did a lot of things providentially in and throughout the Old testament in order to point to the coming of His Son, Jesus Christ who would save mankind from their sins against Him. Jesus came and took the punishment, the wrath of God against the sin of the world, upon Himself, SO THAT we could be saved, to provide A WAY to not get what we deserve, justice. As I read and as I listened God did a work in me, it was a work of repentance, I was justified, saved. I know it wasn't because of lack of intelligence, I'm not stupid, I'm Joe average, like most people. It was because God sovereignty chose to save me. It was then that I realized, the reason I asked the questions I did, the reason I opened the bible that day, the reason I read and listened with an open heart is not because of me, but because God is God and He is God of EVERYTHING, and He does what He will. I didn't "choose" to be a Christian, and if you would have asked me that morning, I probably would have laughed it off, but I didn't laugh that afternoon. I wept, and wept and I realized whom against I had sinned, my Lord and my God, Jesus Christ. Forgive me, oh God forgive me. It was the worst and the best day of my life.

Worst because I finally saw myself in truth, not as I wanted to see myself, but as I really am, a filthy, wretched, sinner. And best because God chose to save ME! Little me, the God of the universe actually cares about me, no not cares, actually loves me. Not because of who I am, be in spite of who I am. WOW. What a God, I spit in His face in the morning, and He forgives me in the afternoon. Praise God.

I don't believe the bible because I was convinced by man, but by God, and I don't think any man can convince anybody in becoming a Christian, I think it is a work of God alone. There is nothing in man that attains toward the true God of the bible, it is only when God draws a man to Himself that the man will begin to draw near to God. It is all the work of God. I know this is very Calvinistic, but it is what Jesus taught, what Paul taught. Before anyone can repent God must change their heart.

I don't know who God will save, that is His choice, but He has commanded me to go and preach the gospel. And I know it is the gospel, the word of God, the bible, that God uses to create, command, and save mankind, whom He saves and when He saves is up to Him alone.

We all in rebellion to Jesus Christ our Lord, all of us. But He commands ALL men everywhere to repent, but we don't want to, we want to be our own lords. So He must work in the hearts of those He is saving before they will repent, only then will we surrender, and stop shaking our fist, only then will we bend our knee and praise Him who alone is worthy, the sinless lamb of God, Jesus Christ.

He is your Lord, and you will bow your knee. The question is will you bend your knee to Him as Lord on the day of judgment, or will you bend your knee today as Lord AND Savior?

Please don't just write this of as some religious nonsense. Be honest about it. Ask the tough questions, have you sinned, you know, lie, stolen... You've heard this all before. If you are truly honest with yourself, you know you have, and before you justify it by saying, "yeah but...", really think about, think about what the bible says about God, not what unsaved man says, unregenerate man hates God, they will say anything to try to make Him look bad. What does the bible actually say.

Most importantly what is TRUE. Not what do you believe to be true, not what seems to make the most "logical" sense, but what is really, actually true?

I will be praying for you to God, may the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ shine down on you." (ShiVeR)Curtis

Overwhelming Evidence

What would happen if a court of today put the validity of Jesus Christ and the resurrection on trial?

Christ would win. There is plenty of evidence that points to a Creator and that Creator communicated with us through His Word.

Jesus Christ came to die on a cross to take the punishment that we deserved in order to save us. In order to do this he had to be resurrected. So, were the eyewitnesses credible?

Simon Greenleaf, a principal founder of the Harvard Law School, in 1874 wrote a paper, available online, called "The testimony of the evangelists examined by the rules of evidence administrated in courts of justice" where he took Jesus and the Bible to trial.

His postulation was that the Bible follows the 'ancient documents rule' that "Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise"

Spoiler alert!

Greenleaf sums up his argument:

"All that Christianity asks of men on this subject, is, that they would be consistent with themselves; that they would treat its evidences as they treat the evidence of other things; and that they would try and judge its actors and witnesses, as they deal with their fellow men, when testifying to human affairs and actions, in human tribunals. Let the witnesses be compared with themselves, with each other, and with the surrounding facts and circumstances; and let their testimony be sifted, as if it were given in a court of justice, on the side of the adverse party, the witnesses being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination. The result,it is confidently believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability and truth ... Either the men of Galilee were men of superlative wisdom, and extensive knowledge and experience, and of deeper skill in the arts of deception, than any and all others, before or after them, or they have truly stated the astonishing things which they saw and heard" (pp. 46 & 53).

Greenleaf came to the conclusion that the witnesses were reliable, and that the resurrection happened.

If you were a jury member would you come to the same conclusion? As an atheist would you put aside your bias and rule properly according to the Law?

UPDATE 1/16/2009:

I took this from a legalese website discussing documents:

[section 491 mandates that the statement be given under oath, affirmation, or some other form of legally binding assertion, such as a statement at the bottom of an income tax return that the answers were given and the signature subscribed "under penalties of perjury." Although it may be morally reprehensible for a person to lie, no legal criminal sanction is imposed for lying until after a person has sworn to tell the truth. Hence, the State must allege and prove that the statement was given under oath or affirmation administered by an authorized person, or under some other form of legally binding assertion.]

In other words assertions are legally binding when said under oath.

I am willing to claim that God exists under oath, would anyone be willing to claim, under oath, that invisible pink hammers exists or the flying spaghetti Monster exists?

Using The Bible in God proofs is not circular reasoning and is the well-established way in which we establish the truth of understanding God. (Thanks, Kaitlyn)

Mere assertion of X (flying spaghetti monster) is not equal to adequate justification of X. (God)








bit.ly/OEvidence

World Wide Economic Meltdown by Ray Comfort

Allow me to parrot Ray today. What if you all start to see the Bible come true? Would you acknowledge it? Would you understand that you have been wrong all along?

"Those of you who are regular atheists must be getting worried. Not about the future, but about the fact that you know what the Bible had to say about the future. I watched CBS news this morning. This is how it began:

"Breaking News. Global market’s plummet this morning after Wall Street’s nearly 900 billion dollar loss on Thursday. Credit markets around the world are seized up in a manner no one has ever seen before."

We are seeing Bible prophecy being fulfilled before our very eyes. Experts have long predicted that we would see a world-wide economic collapse, a one-world government, and the raising up of a charismatic world leader that will bring peace and stability and will not let people buy and sell without a mark...

As this unfolds, it is slowly dawning on you that the Bible is right, and that all those "mistakes" you found in the Bible were actually your mistakes. And that leads to a sobering revelation. It means that Hell is real. So, what are you going to do? I have a suggestion. Humble yourself, then admit you were wrong, and get right with God through repentance and faith in Jesus. Then begin to reach out to the lost with the same zeal you had as an atheist." Ray Comfort

Response to Froggie

Froggie,

Thanks for the melodramatically false post you made, it was quite comical.

No, Poe's Law isn't applicable here but lets get all the facts straight:

First false statement you melodramatically made: "What's worse is that she suffers from Lupus and has had tumors that recently came back."

No my wife doesn't have Lupus my mother did, like Quasar pointed out, but you have yet to correct that part of the blog so you are continually perpetuating a lie. For dramatic purposes?

2nd misrepresentation: "and has had tumors that recently came back."

You know this for a fact? I had no idea you were a doctor with superman's abilities to see through things like skin and bones.

My words were: "the symptoms returned again recently. We feared it was coming back right after our 4th child, she was getting pretty shook up about it. This time we decided to do a 40 day fast and keep in prayer to stop the growth and hope for a miracle from God.

Well, it appears we got our wish and the tumor disappeared with no more signs during the fast (headaches, blurred vision, sinus troubles ...)"

I will admit I may have scared you pretty little head slightly Froggie. I kept calling it a tumor but it actually is a Cyst. 'Rathke's Cleft Cyst' to be technically accurate. It is a balloon of puss growing on the pituitary. It is Non-Cancerous! Some inexperienced doctors might just clip the pituitary off to eliminate it but the Pioneer, Dr. Kelly, uses very high tech camera equipment and goes through the sinus cavity to remove and drain the Cyst without disturbing the Pituitary. He is a very blessed and talented man that I wouldn't know what to do without him. I thank God for putting him so close to us. We were very healthy and three years after moving to California she came down with this problem. You have to understand that before that in Colorado Springs and Texas we owed our own company and to pay for all that out of our own pocket would of bankrupted us. But this Company hear of Patty's tallent and gave us an offer we couldn't refuse. To me, it wasn't coincidental that we happen to be extremely close the the very best Doctor in the entire United States to operate on her.

If you didn't know the pituitary controls the woman's cycles and Patty didn't have any for two years (since Nov, 2006) so it did worry us that we wouldn't have any more children then our three already. The symptoms started getting worse when Patty was breastfeeding our third child (pituitary controls that also) so we went on a long year journey of new baby #3, many hospitals, meetings, and surgeries, at UCLA Hospital at the time.

Immediately after the third surgery Patty got pregnant after her very first (very light) cycle. It was a miracal!

Dr. Kelly was promoted and is now Director of the John Wayne Cancer Institute at St. John's in Santa Monica.

We were all astounded and truly felt we were blessed with a miricle. We were so happy it was over and received a new miricle baby at the end of it. Incidentally all my kids have my personality, but this 4th one is all for Patty, looks and acts just like her. He is the boy version of Patty who was incidentally, an only child. Just another one of lifes coincidences that could be just written off if you're not looking for these things.

The Skeptical Sorcerer said "Whatever he is doing, if he doesn't stop I at least hope he doesn't make his kids join in."

Funny you said this but my 7 year old wanted to join in but I said I would allow it for only one day. So she did but was sad because she was very hungry at bedtime. She was very cute and understood how difficult it was and was a true helper during the 36 days we were fasting. She witnesses more then most adults I know. That little girl at age 5 wanted to and did memorize the Ten Commandments she is my little angel and God has great things in store for her, I just know it. If you need help memorizing go to smartyface.com

It appears the only sane person at this group here is not an atheists at all, named 'LivingAsOneFreed'.

You guys should rename yourselves the "Hyper uber-judgmental unfair atheists" to be more accurate. The problem is you need to make sure that the beam is out of your eye first before you judge so you can see clearly, (Matthew 7:3) that is why it's OK for Christians to Judge Atheists.

And to be perfectly open, here is part of my response on my blog to Froggie:

Froggie said: "This is totally [irresponsible] and life threatening.

A perfectly healthy person might get away with that some, but you could kill your wife with this irrational stuff."

So I said: I appreciate your concern but we are watching very closely.

Please don't think for one moment we are not watching carefully and monitoring and listening to our body's, otherwise you might be the one that is irrational. Remember we made promises to God to go 40 days and fell short by 4 days to call it off to err to caution. If we were "irresponsible" or "irrational" we would of done the full 40 no matter what. We broke our word with God for her safety.

In an attempt to ease your mind, if that is even possible, we are monitoring with, so far, more then 10 MRI's of her brain and have the very best doctor and team in the entire United States to help 24/7. We are no dummies and/or fools here.

Hopefully your lack of confidence and your prejudice has been thwarted. You were completely wrong and irrational yourself.

Proverbs 28:5 "Open rebuke is better than love carefully concealed."

Now are we as radical and criminal as Froggie eluded/accused us to be? If not, what other things can he be wrong about also?

If yes, fine I can live with that, because if the ones that agree with Froggie are the ones that don't believe in God either then the Bible predicted accurately that I would be hated and persecuted by such people and another reason to trust God. Thanks for strengthing my faith.

Knowledge verses Wisdom

At least Stan I can say you are consistent in your responses.

When I said "The same kind of thinking that has corrupted and now bankrupted our economy."

My thoughts were on Barney Frank, another Democrat void of any morals and has the exact characteristics as Calvin holds in the strip. The Cheerleader behind Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac who shot down any regulations and even the soulless Greenspan who was the cheerleader that loved adjustable rates and yet has a 30 year fixed himself. I am sick of all of them, yes even Bush!







And don't get me started on the biggest lair of all of them, McCain, who was so against all these Pork ear marks so much he made a campaign slogan about them.



Then before you can even blink McCain rallies the troops to do that exact thing to the tune of 150 billion more 'sweetener' just to get the 700 bailout passed. Are you kidding me? He just lost the election with that one vote and it doesn't matter how much Sarah Palin is liked.

BTW did you see John Stewart compare McCain to Gallum the other day? Hilarious!



Both Obama and McCain voted for that 700b Bill filled with Pork. This is truly the saddest point humans can be in with all this perceived knowledge, no one is smart enough to have common sense and the simple wisdom of God. Chris Hedges was right when he said "there is nothing in human nature or in human history that points to the idea that we are moving anywhere."

Go read Proverbs everyone, please! Then go get saved. Time is running out.

Out of body

My Mom had a couple of strokes in her life due to complications with Lupus. I remember when she was going through the horribly painful chemotherapy also. I came across this presentation by a woman who is a Brain specialist scientist and was able to articulate what she was going through. Her operation was very similar to what my Mom had. I found it fascinating how she experienced an out of body situation. The story seems similar to people that claimed to go to Heaven and back. My Mom described something similar, like a dream state when she couldn't talk. Does this debunk atheists? No, but I still found it interesting that a scientist found something spiritually enlightening through her right brain. There might be something substantial to explore more.

Maybe, people that seek God are just more right brained then most atheists. Maybe God reveals the right brain to us as we seek Him. These questions I cannot answer myself but I look forward to the discoveries that comes to us in our never ending search to find the truth. When we find the truth we will find God. One question that always comes to mind is, why? Some believe we evolved to this point, so the question is why? Why are we designed like this with two brain hemispheres? Are our brains are simply designed to experience God?

Atheistic Ethics of Calvin

(Click for larger view)

40 Day Fast

Well I was able to get another HD and install XP again. I just didn't have the energy to troubleshoot my computer so I waited until now.

Patty and I just stopped four days short of a 40 day fast and it was quite enlightening. Matthew 17:21 was clear. I will not sugar coat it, because it was one of the hardest things I have ever gone through. We wanted to do a 40 Day fast just after our 40th birthday, in prayer, to stop the spread of my wife's tumor that she had before. It's technical name is a 'rathke's cleft cyst' and she went through three brain surgeries to get rid of it a couple of years back. We happened to be led here to California by God, we feel, to be near the best doctor for the job who is a pioneer in the U.S. He has a top notch team and I am so very grateful for his knowledge and expertize in his field. Dr. Kelly took such good care of Patty, we just knew we were led by God to him.

As mysterious as the tumors were to us, the symptoms returned again recently. We feared it was coming back right after our 4th child, she was getting pretty shook up about it. This time we decided to do a 40 day fast and keep in prayer to stop the growth and hope for a miracle from God.

Well, it appears we got our wish and the tumor disappeared with no more signs during the fast (headaches, blurred vision, sinus troubles ...) so we feel our prayers have been answered. We were attacked by the devil in many other areas of our lives and we came through it quite humbled. Our bodies even started to reject water on day 34 and we were vomiting green bile the last two days. I felt like that exorcist girl towards the end and that is what prompted the early stopping point. We listened to our bodies and stopped when it was time.

Both our bodies were getting too stressed to handle our work load we had, so on day 36 we had the Lord's supper as our first meal and began the reintroduction of food again. The food tasted so very good those next days. We stayed as close to God as possible (eating raw fruits and vegetables) and we feel 100% again.

I suggest to all people that are questioning their faith or validity of God, and wants to know the truth of God, to "deny thy self" for 40 days with nothing but water and to focus on God for those days to allow Him to manifest Himself to you. Stay in His Word for those days. God has showed me everything I need to believe/trust in Him and I wish that would be the same case for all of you, if you give it the effort to understand Him. I can't begin to tell you the benefits of a long fast. Our bodies feel rejuvenated and toxin free. My spirit is calm and peaceful and ready for the challenges that life has for us. We should all strive to do a 40 day fast on our 40th birth day to reboot our systems both physically and spiritually.

bit.ly/40dayFast

Devil attacks!

For some reason my HD cannot find the OS. I will have to get a new HD and install a new OS and then transfer files over from the old HD if I can. I will try to reinstall the MBR after the transfer. In other words I am down for a couple.

I am sure you will survive without me.

I don't even like checking my email since my kids have Win ME...I know. But I will attempt to check it on occasion.

Scientists, In The Right Direction?

I believed that science was a ship without a rudder floating around trying to prove evolution and the big bang by feeding that Darwinian paradigm and I thought that scientists were hopelessly lost.

Recently though, I thought things were complicating my beliefs about scientists with this latest endeavor at CERN's Large Hadron Collider (LHC) because the search may reveal unknown subatomic particles. They are on a quest not to prove the big bang, they hope that to be a byproduct of the experiments, what the real primer of all these experiments, all these resources, and great minds hope to find is something called, ironically dubbed 'The God Particle.'

The Higgs particle that can explain many things. They believe, it's a particle, or set of particles, that might give others mass. It would put many pieces into place and help complete the puzzle. It's no wonder they named it the God particle. God could certainly accomplish that.

What is puzzling is that scientists will go through these great lengths to search for the God particle but not God Himself. Only time will tell if God will allow them to succeed or not. I suspect they will never achieve the solutions for the 'theory of everything'(TOE) because they are missing the most important primer/rudder, and that is God. Still without a rudder, they will float endlessly.

I would hope they all would be honest with themselves, and after 10 years of searching for truth they conclude, that God is the truth and there could be no other explanation. What a glorious day that will be for mankind when Science finds that rudder and comes into port safe and intact. I would welcome them with a hero's welcome. I wish them well to accomplish the humbling task of finding God.

Science needs a better god

Dave W. said:

You seem to be looking to end science entirely...you do shun modern medicine, right?"

Well not entirely. You depend on science fully and I know for a fact that it has tremendously large holes. You must agree there is bad science also. Yes I believe that certain science needs to go away. I would love to see pharmaceuticals go away myself. Legal drug pushers is just not working and there are many examples. Instead of reaching for the medicine cabinet there is another medicine cabinet in the house, it's called the kitchen.

Also annoying things like genetic alterations to 'juice up' cows with hormones to produce ten times the amounts of milk and other synthetic ways to ruin a perfect thing. Science cannot even begin to understand the complexity and perfection of cows milk yet they try to alter it 'willy nilly' and the world is the Ginny Pig. We have mad cow disease, scientists thought it was a great idea to feed cows, cow spinal cords? Ask yourself this, which is better for you raw vegetables (closest to God) or canned or frozen?

Vaccines also are ruining many children and rendering them with autism and on and on. Chemicals they used to use to induce labor used to render the children deformed. There are many out there with defects because of it. They still don't know for sure if the current methods are better for women and children. Again Natural is better.

Like it was pointed out in an older post, "You know, there is nothing in human nature or in human history that points to the idea that we are moving anywhere. Technology and science, though they are cumulative and have improved, in many ways, the lives of people within the industrialized nations, have also unleashed the most horrific forms of violence and death, and let's not forget, environmental degradation, in human history. So, there's nothing intrinsically moral about science."

I was searching to see if gelatin (pork or animal fat) was in yogurt, which it is (plain might be OK). I stumbled on this also:

"Another set of controversial ingredients is natural colorings. It is advantageous for manufacturers to use natural colorings to avoid listing artificial colors on the label. Two natural colors with kashrus concerns are carmine and grape. Carmine is derived from the insect coccus cacti."

This bug is crushed up in yogurt and other foods for quote "natural" color. MMM, Yummy!

So yes I would love to see some science go away but that just won't happen. Maybe if we stop connecting science with profit we would be better off. If science could honor God's Creation more in the mindset of scientists, to keep God's things sacred, then we wouldn't be in this trouble we are in. Science has no moral rudder and the ship is adrift.

From that same older post "I think the New Atheists also make that leap from science into the cult of science, and that's a problem."

Ocean Angels

During the time that I was in the Navy, I saw many wonderful things in the ocean. I enjoyed watching the hammer heads search for prey. I saw the huge turtles dive deep out of sight. Wales were everywhere we went and I frequently saw them doing various things with grace and ease. I forgot the name but I really enjoyed at night the phosphorous illumination of the ocean churned up by our screw, 'Bio luminescent plankton' I believe is the name. The most enjoyment I received was from the very quick and agile dolphins, I would watch for hours dolphins zipping back and forth in front of our ship with ease, while we were cruising at 25 knots. The 'Old Salts' used to tell us tales of Dolphins saving sailors lives. Little did I know this at the time but these were no tales.

Recently, I heard of a couple of stories where dolphins have saved people from certain death. One in our own back yard of Monterey Bay, California

Todd Endris escaped with his life thanks to those dolphins. Watch the report although there are some mangled leg pictures in it.

One of the most fascinating accounts is when the dolphins were swimming aggressively around the group and bumping their feet to keep the feet up. They couldn't even swim forward, they were only allowed to tread water. The video program said the dolphins were swimming so fast around them the appeared to be angry at the people, they thought they might of disturbed a baby dolphin and they were being territorial. The truth is that a great white shark was swimming just under their feet and was making approaches to strike. The dolphins kept the people safe until the danger passed.

Another brilliant moment was described when the dolphins saved a girl from drowning! She said: "All of a sudden, I was looking once again at the azure, cloudless sky above me, perplexed as to how this had happened. It seems that the dolphin had ingeniously flipped me over, before nuzzling his slippery snout into the nape of my neck to keep my head above the water. I was being nurtured, protected and held in timeless suspension."

Then once saved she recalls "Once I was safely on the main boat, the dolphin that had "saved" me, along with three others, circled it in glee. Leaping, belly-flopping, back-flipping, it was a sight to behold. They clearly shared my own elation,..."

There is still another story of a man bleeding in the ocean for hours being protected by dolphins to fend off a team of stalking sharks moving closer.

I am sure there are plenty more examples of this behavior of dolphins "looking out" for us in the vast waters of the ocean. My question to all of you is why? Science may describe the how, like through communication through clicks and what not, but why? Why would they risk their own lives to save ours? They all clearly recognize humans and are sensitive to our needs. They know we are "fish out of the water" in the ocean. So they seek to help and protect us. Why? If you believe in the evolution model, explain this 'evolving' behavior. What is the benefit of dolphins helping humans in an evolutionary concept? Compassion understandably, is allowed in the evolutionary model but compassion between species, without any benefit? I believe there is absolutely no evolutionary benefit for this type of behavior, but I would be what is called biased to the subject.

Just remember there is a real reason why all of the sailors call dolphins 'ocean angels.' God's creation is just too wonderful to discount as a coincidence or merely an anomaly. This is true altruism.

Conclusion

(Part 6) Some hope to avoid the contradiction by asserting that naturalism rules only within the realm of science, and that there is a separate realm called "religion" in which theism can flourish. The problem with this arrangement, as we have already seen, is that in a naturalistic culture scientific conclusions are considered to be knowledge, or even fact. What is outside of fact is fantasy, or at best subjective belief. Theists who accommodate with scientific naturalism therefore may never affirm that their God is real in the same sense that evolution is real. This rule is essential to the entire mindset that produced Darwinism in the first place. If God exists He could certainly work through mutation and selection if that is what He wanted to do, but He could also create by some means totally outside the ken of our science. Once we put God into the picture, however, there is no good reason to attribute the creation of biological complexity to random mutation and natural selection. Direct evidence that these mechanisms have substantial creative power is not to be found in nature, the laboratory, or the fossil record. An essential step in the reasoning that establishes that Darwinian selection created the wonders of biology, therefore, is that nothing else was available. Theism is by definition the doctrine that something else was available.

Perhaps the contradiction is hard to see when it is stated at an abstract level, so I will give a more concrete example. Persons who advocate the compromise position called "theistic evolution" are in my experience always vague about what they mean by "evolution." They have good reason to be vague. As we have seen, Darwinian evolution is by definition unguided and purposeless, and such evolution cannot in any meaningful sense be theistic. For evolution to be genuinely theistic it must be guided by God, whether this means that God programmed the process in advance or stepped in from time to time to give it a push in the right direction. To Darwinists evolution guided by God is a soft form of creationism, which is to say it is not evolution at all. To repeat, this understanding goes to the very heart of Darwinist thinking. Allow a preexisting supernatural intelligence to guide evolution, and this omnipotent being can do a whole lot more than that.

Of course, theists can think of evolution as God-guided whether naturalistic Darwinists like it or not. The trouble with having a private definition for theists, however, is that the scientific naturalists have the power to decide what that term "evolution" means in public discourse, including the science classes in the public schools. If theistic evolutionists broadcast the message that evolution as they understand it is harmless to theistic religion, they are misleading their constituents unless they add a clear warning that the version of evolution advocated by the entire body of mainstream science is something else altogether. That warning is never clearly delivered, however, because the main point of theistic evolution is to preserve peace with the mainstream scientific community. The theistic evolutionists therefore unwitting serve the purposes of the scientific naturalists, by helping persuade the religious community to lower its guard against the incursion of naturalism.

We are now in a position to answer the question with which this lecture began. What is Darwinism? Darwinism is a theory of empirical science only at the level of microevolution, where it provides a framework for explaining such things as the diversity that arises when small populations become reproductively isolated from the main body of the species. As a general theory of biological creation Darwinism is not empirical at all. Rather, it is a necessary implication of a philosophical doctrine called scientific naturalism, which is based on the a priori assumption that God was always absent from the realm of nature. As such evolution in the Darwinian sense is inherently antithetical to theism, although evolution in some entirely different and non-naturalistic sense could conceivably have been God's chosen method of creation.

In 1874, the great Presbyterian theologian Charles Hodge asked the question I have asked: What is Darwinism? After a careful and thoroughly fair-minded evaluation of the doctrine, his answer was unequivocal: "It is Atheism." Another way to state the proposition is to say that Darwinism is the answer to a specific question that grows out of philosophical naturalism. In the game of "Jeopardy", let us say that Darwinism is the answer. What, then, is the question? The question is: "How must creation have occurred if we assume that God had nothing to do with it?" Theistic evolutionists accomplish very little by trying to Christianize the answer to a question that comes straight out of the agenda of scientific naturalism. What we need to do instead is to challenge the assumption that the only questions worth asking are the ones that assume that naturalism is true.


(*Copied Source)

Truth

(Part 5) Truth as such is not a particularly important concept in naturalistic philosophy. The reason for this is that "truth" suggests an unchanging absolute, whereas scientific knowledge is a dynamic concept. Like life, knowledge evolves and grows into superior forms. What was knowledge in the past is not knowledge today, and the knowledge of the future will surely be far superior to what we have now. Only naturalism itself and the unique validity of science as the path to knowledge are absolutes. There can be no criterion for truth outside of scientific knowledge, no mind of God to which we have access.

This way of understanding things persists even when scientific naturalists employ religious-sounding language. For example, the physicist Stephen Hawking ended his famous book A Brief History of Time with the prediction that man might one day "know the mind of God." This phrasing cause some friends of mine to form the mistaken impression that he had some attraction to theistic religion. In context Hawking was not referring to a supernatural eternal being, however, but to the possibility that scientific knowledge will eventually become complete and all-encompassing because it will have explained the movements of material particles in all circumstances.

The monopoly of science in the realm of knowledge explains why evolutionary biologists do not find it meaningful to address the question whether the Darwinian theory is true. They will gladly concede that the theory is incomplete, and that further research into the mechanisms of evolution is needed. At any given point in time, however, the reigning theory of naturalistic evolution represents the state of scientific knowledge about how we came into existence. Scientific knowledge is by definition the closest approximation of absolute truth available to us. To ask whether this knowledge is true is therefore to miss the point, and to betray a misunderstanding of "how science works."

So far I have described the metaphysical categories by which scientific naturalists have excluded the topic of God from rational discussion, and thus ensured that Darwinism's fully naturalistic creation story is effectively true by definition. There is no need to explain why atheists find this system of thought control congenial. What is a little more difficult to understand, at least at first, is the strong support Darwinism continues to receive in the Christian academic world. Attempts to investigate the credibility of the Darwinist evolution story are regarded with little enthusiasm by many leading Christian professors of science and philosophy, even at institutions which are generally regarded as conservative in theology. Given that Darwinism is inherently naturalistic and therefore antagonistic to the idea that God had anything to do with the history of life, and that it plays the central role in ensuring agnostic domination of the intellectual culture, one might have supposed that Christian intellectuals (along with religious Jews) would be eager to find its weak spots.

Instead, the prevailing view among Christian professors has been that Darwinism-or "evolution," as they tend to call it-is unbeatable, and that it can be interpreted to be consistent with Christian belief. And in fact Darwinism is unbeatable as long as one accepts the thought categories of scientific naturalism that I have been describing. The problem is that those same thought categories make Christian theism, or any other theism, absolutely untenable. If science has exclusive authority to tell us how life was created, and if science is committed to naturalism, and if science never discards a paradigm until it is presented with an acceptable naturalistic alternative, then Darwinism's position is impregnable within science. The same reasoning that makes Darwinism inevitable, however, also bans God from taking any action within the history of the Cosmos, which means that it makes theism illusory. Theistic naturalism is self-contradictory.

(*Copied Source)

Science (continued)

(Part 4) The continuing survival of Darwinist orthodoxy illustrates Thomas Kuhn's famous point that the accumulation of anomalies never in itself falsifies a paradigm, because "To reject one paradigm without substituting another is to reject science itself." This practice may be appropriate as a way of carrying on the professional enterprise called science, but it can be grossly misleading when it is imposed upon persons who are asking questions other than the ones scientific naturalists want to ask. Suppose, for example, that I want to know whether God really had something to do with creating living organisms. A typical Darwinian response is that there is no reason to invoke supernatural action because Darwinian selection was capable of performing the job. To evaluate that response, I need to know whether natural selection really has the fantastic creative power attributed to it. It is not a sufficient answer to say that scientists have nothing better to offer. The fact that scientists don't like to say "we don't know" tells me nothing about what they really do know.

I am not suggesting that scientists have to change their rules about retaining and discarding paradigms. All I want them to do is to be candid about the disconfirming evidence and admit, if it is the case, that they are hanging on to Darwinism only because they prefer a shaky theory to having no theory at all. What they insist upon doing, however, is to present Darwinian evolution to the public as a fact that every rational person is expected to accept. If there are reasonable grounds to doubt the theory such dogmatism is ridiculous, whether or not the doubters have a better theory to propose.

To believers in creation, the Darwinists seem thoroughly intolerant and dogmatic when they insist that their own philosophy must have a monopoly in the schools and the media. The Darwinists do not see themselves that way, of course. On the contrary, they often feel aggrieved when creationists (in either the broad or narrow sense) ask to have their own arguments heard in public and fairly considered. To insist that schoolchildren be taught that Darwinian evolution is a fact is in their minds merely to protect the integrity of science education; to present the other side of the case would be to allow fanatics to force their opinions on others. Even college professors have been forbidden to express their doubts about Darwinian evolution in the classroom, and it seems to be widely believed that the Constitution not only permits but actually requires such restrictions on academic freedom. To explain this bizarre situation, we must define our fourth term: religion.

Suppose that a skeptic argues that evidence for biological creation by natural selection is obviously lacking, and that in the circumstances we ought to give serious consideration to the possibility that the development of life required some input from a pre-existing, purposeful creator. To scientific naturalists this suggestion is "creationist" and therefore unacceptable in principle, because it invokes an entity unknown to science. What is worse, it suggests the possibility that this creator may have communicated in some way with humans. In that case there could be real prophets-persons with a genuine knowledge of God who are neither frauds nor dreamers. Such persons could conceivably be dangerous rivals for the scientists as cultural authorities.

Naturalistic philosophy has worked out a strategy to prevent this problem from arising: it labels naturalism as science and theism as religion. The former is then classified as knowledge, and the latter as mere belief. The distinction is of critical importance, because only knowledge can be objectively valid for everyone; belief is valid only for the believer, and should never be passed off as knowledge. The student who thinks that 2 and 2 make 5, or that water is not made up of hydrogen and oxygen, or that the theory of evolution is not true, is not expressing a minority viewpoint. He or she is ignorant, and the job of education is to cure that ignorance and to replace it with knowledge. Students in the public schools are thus to be taught at an early age that "evolution is a fact," and as time goes by they will gradually learn that evolution means naturalism.

In short, the proposition that God was in any way involved in our creation is effectively outlawed, and implicitly negated. This is because naturalistic evolution is by definition in the category of scientific knowledge. What contradicts knowledge is implicitly false, or imaginary. That is why it is possible for scientific naturalists in good faith to claim on the one hand that their science says nothing about God, and on the other to claim that they have said everything that can be said about God. In naturalistic philosophy both propositions are at bottom the same. All that needs to be said about God is that there is nothing to be said of God, because on that subject we can have no knowledge.

(*Copied Source)

Science

(Part 3) We have already seen that Darwinists assume as a matter of first principle that the history of the cosmos and its life forms is fully explicable on naturalistic principles. This reflects a philosophical doctrine called scientific naturalism, which is said to be a necessary consequence of the inherent limitations of science. What scientific naturalism does, however, is to transform the limitations of science into limitations upon reality, in the interest of maximizing the explanatory power of science and its practitioners. It is, of course, entirely possible to study organisms scientifically on the premise that they were all created by God, just as scientists study airplanes and even works of art without denying that these objects are intelligently designed. The problem with allowing God a role in the history of life is not that science would cease, but rather that scientists would have to acknowledge the existence of something important which is outside the boundaries of natural science. For scientists who want to be able to explain everything-and "theories of everything" are now openly anticipated in the scientific literature- this is an intolerable possibility.

The second feature of scientific naturalism that is important for our purpose is its set of rules governing the criticism and replacement of a paradigm. A paradigm is a general theory, like the Darwinian theory of evolution, which has achieved general acceptance in the scientific community. The paradigm unifies the various specialties that make up the research community, and guides research in all of them. Thus, zoologists, botanists, geneticists, molecular biologists, and paleontologists all see their research as aimed at filling out the details of the Darwinian paradigm. If molecular biologists see a pattern of apparently neutral mutations, which have no apparent effect on an organism's fitness, they must find a way to reconcile their findings with the paradigm's requirement that natural selection guides evolution. This they can do by postulating a sufficient quantity of invisible adaptive mutations, which are deemed to be accumulated by natural selection. Similarly, if paleontologists see new fossil species appearing suddenly in the fossil record, and remaining basically unchanged thereafter, they must perform whatever contortions are necessary to force this recalcitrant evidence into a model of incremental change through the accumulation of micromutations.

Supporting the paradigm may even require what in other contexts would be called deception. As Niles Eldredge candidly admitted, "We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports [the story of gradual adaptive change], all the while knowing it does not." Eldredge explained that this pattern of misrepresentation occurred because of "the certainty so characteristic of evolutionary ranks since the late 1940s, the utter assurance not only that natural selection operates in nature, but that we know precisely how it works." This certainty produced a degree of dogmatism that Eldredge says resulted in the relegation to the "lunatic fringe" of paleontologists who reported that "they saw something out of kilter between contemporary evolutionary theory, on the one hand, and patterns of change in the fossil record on the other." Under the circumstances, prudent paleontologists understandably swallowed their doubts and supported the ruling ideology. To abandon the paradigm would be to abandon the scientific community; to ignore the paradigm and just gather the facts would be to earn the demeaning label of "stamp collector."

As many philosophers of science have observed, the research community does not abandon a paradigm in the absence of a suitable replacement. This means that negative criticism of Darwinism, however devastating it may appear to be, is essentially irrelevant to the professional researchers. The critic may point out, for example, that the evidence that natural selection has any creative power is somewhere between weak and non-existent. That is perfectly true, but to Darwinists the more important point is this: If natural selection did not do the creating, what did? "God" is obviously unacceptable, because such a being is unknown to science. "We don't know" is equally unacceptable, because to admit ignorance would be to leave science adrift without a guiding principle. To put the problem in the most practical terms: it is impossible to write or evaluate a grant proposal without a generally accepted theoretical framework.

The paradigm rule explains why Gould's acknowledgment that neo-Darwinism is "effectively dead" had no significant effect on the Darwinist faithful, or even on Gould himself. Gould made that statement in a paper predicting the emergence of a new general theory of evolution, one based on the macromutational speculations of the Berkeley geneticist Richard Goldschmidt. When the new theory did not arrive as anticipated, the alternatives were either to stick with Ernst Mayr's version of neo-Darwinism, or to concede that biologists do not after all know of a naturalistic mechanism that can produce biological complexity. That was no choice at all. Gould had to beat a hasty retreat back to classical Darwinism to avoid giving aid and comfort to the enemies of scientific naturalism, including those disgusting creationists.

(*Copied Source)

Creationism

(Part 2) Creationism, which means simply a belief in creation. In Darwinist usage, which dominates not only the popular and profession scientific literature but also the media, a creationist is a person who takes the creation account in the Book of Genesis to be true in an very literal sense. It is a major theme of Darwinist propaganda that the only persons who have any doubts about Darwinism are young-earth creationists of this sort, who are always portrayed as rejecting the clear and convincing evidence of science to preserve a religious prejudice. The implication is that citizens of modern society are faced with a choice that is really no choice at all. Either they reject science altogether and retreat to a pre-modern worldview, or they believe everything the Darwinists tell them.

In a broader sense, however, a creationist is simply a person who believes in the existence of a creator, who brought about the existence of the world and its living inhabitants in furtherance of a purpose. If God brought about our existence for a purpose, then the most important kind of knowledge to have is knowledge of God and of what He intends for us. Is creation in that broad sense consistent with evolution?

The answer is absolutely not, when "evolution" is understood in the Darwinian sense. To Darwinists evolution means naturalistic evolution, because they insist that science must assume that the cosmos is a closed system of material causes and effects, which can never be influenced by anything outside of material nature-by God, for example. In the beginning, an explosion of matter created the cosmos, and undirected, naturalistic evolution produced everything that followed. From this philosophical standpoint it follows deductively that from the beginning no intelligent purpose guided evolution. If intelligence exists today, that is only because it has itself evolved through purposeless material processes.

A materialistic theory of evolution must inherently invoke two kinds of processes. At bottom the theory must be based on chance, because that is what is left when we have ruled out everything involving intelligence or purpose. Theories which invoke only chance are not credible, however. One thing that everyone acknowledges is that living organisms are enormously complex-far more so than, say, a computer or an airplane. That such complex entities came into existence simply by chance is clearly less credible than that they were designed and constructed by a creator. To back up their claim that this appearance of intelligent design is an illusion, Darwinists need to provide some complexity- building force that is mindless and purposeless. Natural selection is by far the most plausible candidate.

If we assume that random genetic mutations provided the new genetic information needed, say, to give a small mammal a start towards wings, and if we assume that each tiny step in the process of wing-building gave the animal an increased chance of survival, then natural selection ensured that the favored creatures would thrive and reproduce. It follows as a matter of logic that wings can and will appear as if by the plan of a designer. Of course, if wings or other improvements do not appear, the theory explains their absence just as well. The needed mutations didn't arrive, or "developmental constraints" closed off certain possibilities, or natural selection favored something else. There is no requirement that any of this speculation be confirmed by either experimental or fossil evidence. To Darwinists just being able to imagine the process is sufficient to confirm that something like that must have happened.

Richard Dawkins calls the process of creation by mutation and selection "the blind watchmaker," by which label he means that a purposeless, materialistic designing force substitutes for the "watchmaker" deity of natural theology. The existence of a potent blind watchmaker follows deductively from the philosophical premise that nature had to do its own creating. There can be argument about the details, but if God was not in the picture something very much like Darwinism simply has to be true, regardless of the evidence.

(Copied Source)

Atheistic Naturalism

(Part 1) To start this quest we must lay the ground and get things defined to understand each point.

I am not attempting to plagiarize, but to highlight and advertise the points made. I originally saw it in a Christian Research "Journal" and subsequently found it online *, I thought there would be quite a bit of typing. The brilliant work here is solely Phillip E. Johnson who is considered the father of the intelligent design movement.

First, Darwinian theory tells us how a certain amount of diversity in life forms can develop once we have various types of complex living organisms already are in existence. When the theory is understood in this limited sense, Darwinian evolution is uncontroversial and has no important philosophical or theological implications.

Evolutionary biologists are not content merely to explain how variation occurs within limits, however. They aspire to answer a much broader question-which is how complex organisms like birds, and flowers, and human beings came into existence in the first place. The Darwinian answer to this second question is that the creative force that produced complex plants and animals from single-celled predecessors over long stretches of geological time is essentially the same as the mechanism that produces variations in flowers, insects, and domestic animals before our very eyes. In the words of Ernst Mayr, the dean of living Darwinists, "transpacific evolution [i.e., macroevolution] is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species." Neo-Darwinian evolution in this broad sense is a philosophical doctrine so lacking in empirical support that Mayr's successor at Harvard, Stephen Jay Gould, once pronounced it in a reckless moment to be "effectively dead." Yet neo-Darwinism is far from dead; on the contrary, it is continually proclaimed in the textbooks and the media as unchallengeable fact. How does it happen that so many scientists and intellectuals, who pride themselves on their empiricism and open-mindedness, continue to accept an unempirical theory as scientific fact?

The answer to that question lies in the definition of five key terms. The terms are creationism, evolution, science, religion, and truth. Once we understand how these words are used in evolutionary discourse, the continued ascendancy of neo-Darwinism will be no mystery and we need no longer be deceived by claims that the theory is supported by "overwhelming evidence."

CRI adds: "The debate between creationism and Darwinism is often depicted as a dispute between naive biblical literalists, who ignore the overwhelming evidence for evolution, and scientifically enlightened intellectuals. But this is a caricature that serves the purpose of helping to perpetuate a world view hostile to Christian faith: atheistic naturalism."

(*Copied Source)

New post series! coming soon

Get used to this picture because I will use it for my new series of posts. There was a true epiphany moment last night reading an article, I will have to do more thinking and figure out how I will present it but I believe I have found the primer that exposes evolution. Be patient though allow me to take the time to do my homework within my schedule.

What got my juices flowing with the epiphany is during a real great conversation.

Earlier Pvblivs brilliantly said "We don't have evidence that large-scale evolution is wrong and we are not going to. Evidence is not collected in such a way that takes that risk. It's always always "if we get outcome A it is confirmation and if we don't, it's inconclusive." I have looked at the claims of "easily falsifiable if wrong." Every time it is a case where they determined something would not happen (independent of large-scale evolution) and then decreed it was a potential falsifier."

Now I wish to explore those thought and expound on it. Sometimes you can just feel when people are on to something and that's the feeling I experienced when Pvblivs said his points. I also added three books to the DA bookstore from a man that has great insight to the subject named Phillip E. Johnson. Johnson agrees with Pvblivs' observations also. I am excited and rejuvenated and look forward to discussing it further. If I lay it all out in one post it would be ginormous, so I may have to do it in steps and stack the case. Let me plead the case in it's entirety before an onslaught of counter points because I may address it when all the posts are complete. Plus, I need that time to create it instead of discussing things in the comments.

The things I found, so far, are from Johnson and CRI so most of what I present will be shamelessly borrowed from those sources since the research on the subject has already been completed. I am not trying to reinvent the wheel here. I am not trying to write a book or take credit for anything. I want to get atheists to understand they are absolutely wrong. I am trying to make a case to expose evolution in this forum. This is my intention.

Tell everyone you know! When you see my mug prepare to be enlightened!

What's the Purpose of Evil?

I cannot even answer if evil is eliminated will there be free will in Heaven? I know we won't want to leave and/or be tempted to leave.

We can appreciate God's goodness in the presence of evil. Unlike Adam who didn't know evil, Satan who didn't know evil, until they fell. We do! Because of it, we so appreciate his goodness and no matter what temptation that will come our way in heaven, if that could even happen, there would be no way, why? Because we knew how horrible evil was and now we can fully appreciate his goodness.

The presence of sin allows God to demonstrate his righteousness, the presence of sin allows God to demonstrate His love, and how else could He show the character of love that loves enemies and sinners if there were none? God endures this horrible assault on His everlasting holiness; He endures the horrifying blaspheming, history of fallen beings, He suffers it, the imposition it is on His purity to display His wrath to the fullest extent, to put Himself on everlasting display.

Why are we here? What is the theological answer? To glorify God and enjoy Him ever more. How do you glorify God? Here is how, you sinner, go get saved. Get saved so God can be glorified, that's it; this is the purpose of this entire universe.

God knew we would sin, He knew we would rebel, He knew we would introduce evil, He knew it. So that he can send forth a savior born of a virgin, to live under the law to save us under the curse of the law so that, we can be a little trophy of his grace, he can always point to us as a testimony to his goodness. Ephesians 2:7

We wouldn't know how God is righteous as He is, everlastingly, and give him glory for it. If it hadn't of been for unrighteousness, we wouldn't know He's loving, as He is, if it hadn't been for sin, we wouldn't know He's holy, if it weren't for judgment.

How holy is God? So holy that He must send out of His presence, everlastingly, anyone who is not fit. Why of all this? That he might make known the riches of his glory, that is, He did all of this in order that He might gather into heaven a redeemed humanity who would forever glorify Him for all that He is. (paraphrased from Todd Friel)

bit.ly/whyevil

Logic says the Bible is Supernatural

Why you ask? Because a wicked man wouldn't write such a book, a wicked man wouldn't think of themselves as wicked and wretched. Lofty self abasement thoughts, such as the ones in the Bible, wouldn't prevail in a wicked man. A good man wouldn't write it because it would of been a lie. No one would go through such lengths with such a cohesive prophetically accurate book.

Mathematically it would be impossible to have such a book last this many years, over this many languages, way before there was even a method to copy in mass, of such writings. A book that accurately gets it right throughout the years, proved by the Dead Sea Scrolls, and last over 2000 years altering this many lives and still is relevant to this hour. A book that makes sense still to this hour. A book that has come true to this hour. A Book that has changed me to this hour. His will is perfect.

I obtained permission from Rev. Stanley L. Derickson Ph.D to use this, which he wrote:

THE SUPERNATURAL ORIGINS OF THE WORD OF GOD

Chafer (Chafer, Lewis Sperry; "SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY"; Dallas, TX: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947) deals at length with the fact that the Bible had supernatural origins. I have condensed his thoughts into what is presented in this appendix. He presents 15 topics.

1. THE BOOK OF GOD: The book of God asserts this fact for itself many times over. The question some raise is whether it was written by a man or revealed by God and recorded by man. The structure and message of the book demand a divine author.

Man could not set out to write a book of this size. He would not have the ideas of it, nor would man be able to produce the detail and precision of it. It presents God as THE God. It presents God as having a plan. It presents God only as deserving glory. It presents God as the absolute authority.

The unregenerate man could not subdue his own pride to produce such a God, nor could he exalt his talents to a level capable of producing such a book.

2. THE BIBLE AND MONOTHEISM: The Bible presents monotheism - one God, not many. Mankind has always had many gods, be they wood, clay, gold or silver. Idolatry is in every civilization to some extent. The Bible presents a one-God religion. How could man devise such a thought as one God in a world of many gods?

3. THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY: The doctrine of the Trinity is so complex yet so simple as to demand a divine origin for the Bible. The Trinity is three persons in one God. Stated it is simple yet the explanation has evaded man since the subject was undertaken for study. We cannot explain the how of the Trinity only the fact of it.

The work each member of the Trinity is involved in is also very complicated - the Fatherhood of God, or the perfections of Christ. Man cannot adequately explain these things so how could he devise them?

4. CREATION: The creation is the beginning of the content of Scripture. This creation is presented as fact and is described in Scripture. Man's explanation of the beginning of the world is tied up in evolution. Even with the best product evolution could produce, that person could not have produced the Biblical account. Evolution is shot through with problems and gaps. Man could not devise a creation as perfectly presented in Scripture.

5. SIN: Sin is presented in Scripture. Forty authors, are in complete agreement on sin and its existence. Man could not devise such a thing as sin from his own mind. Sin is a divine statement and idea not a man made doctrine.

6. THE CURE OF EVIL ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE: The Bible's cure for sin is so divine as to demand divine authorship.

Man would not devise a plan of salvation because without Scripture he doesn't know he needs it. Even if man knew he needed salvation he could not dream up a plan whereby all could be saved apart from works or vanity.

Man could not devise a plan of salvation where the one redeeming would gain all the glory. Man could not come up with such a beautiful plan aside from having it revealed to him by God.

7. THE EXTENT OF BIBLE REVELATION: The extent of the Bible demands a divine author. It reaches minutely into eternity past as well as eternity future. Human authors aside from revelation could not make up such detail nor such broad perimeters.

8. THE ETHICS OF THE BIBLE: The ethics that the Bible produces have never even been hinted at in man's religions. Purity and holiness of life are the divine standard while in most of man's we find debasement and immorality.

The Bible presents man as an utter failure and unable to help himself. Man in his vanity even today has trouble comprehending such things, much less making them up.

Only a divine author could take a moral system such as Judaism and lay it aside for another system so different yet presenting the same morality as Christianity. Man could not come up with such a moral standard based on the teachings of a book without revelation from God.

9. THE CONTINUITY OF THE BIBLE: The continuity of Scripture declares a divine editor and revealer - 66 books, 40 authors and hundreds of years of history. The authors are separated by time, space and education. They come from all walks of life and most of them never met one another, yet they came together to form one central story of the Son of God, Jesus Christ.

He is shown as pre-incarnate. He is shown in prophecy as coming. He is shown as here in His first advent. He is shown as coming again in the future.

One man could produce a work with continuity but this combination of authors and times has to be divinely assembled. Man could not produce such a work.

10. PROPHECY AND ITS FULFILLMENT: Prophecy along with its fulfillment is proof that the Bible is of divine origin. Man can think and project what might happen in the future based on knowledge, history and common sense, but man cannot accurately predict specific occurrences and have those occurrences come to pass. The Scripture is full of prophecies that have been fulfilled and which will yet be fulfilled.

11. TYPES WITH THEIR ANTITYPES: The types of the Old Testament and the antitypes of the New Testament are of such splendor that they must have divine origin. The fact that the type was set to words by a person other than the one setting down the antitype, and this being done hundreds of years apart, shows divine origin. This would require divine intervention!

12. THE BIBLE AS LITERATURE: The Bible is considered great literature even by the unsaved. If a man had been setting these great words down, he most surely would have left some personal opinions and pronouns to let the reader know that it was he that had written the work.

The truths are not from the men but from their God so that they left no opinion of their own or personal pronouns to lay claim to any of the truths.

Many of the church fathers have been prolific writers, however, none of these have even touched the clarity and preciseness of Scripture, nor have they touched the literary quality of the Word.

13. THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE: Science is in constant revision. The world was flat - remember - and now it is round. The scientific world is always redoing and redefining to fit the exposed facts. The Bible on the other hand has always been acceptable in all ages without revision or redefining.

Where the Bible has seemingly contradicted science in the past, the scientists have found that they were in error in later days.

14. THE BIBLE AND TEMPORAL POWER: The Bible is not dependent upon political power, or clout to get its job done. The believer can do the work of the Lord with or without the help of the governmental powers.

Man naturally, when he wants something done, will try any means to achieve his end. They often use political power, or strings with politicians, to achieve their goal.

If man had written the Bible he would not have been able to come up with the idea that man could do the work of the Lord relying on the heart and mind of others rather than political power.

15. THE BIBLE'S ENDURING FRESHNESS: The constant new blessing a person gains from the Word even when he has read, and read, and read a portion there is always something more to be gleaned from its content. No other literature can make this claim to freshness and vitality.

Chafer and Dr. Derickson knows the truth about the Bible. The list collectively speaks the apparent realization the Bible is purely supernatural. When we look deep inside ourselves we see the truth. The awe and majesty of the Bible is very real from the day you pick it up to the day you put it down as read. It will change you forever, or to be more accurate it changed me forever. It is the single greatest literary work of all time forever, we cannot give this credit to 40 men between a thousand year span, it must be to God. We all know deep in our soul logically, the Bible is the Word of God.


bit.ly/Biblelogic

tinyurl.com/LogicBible

Carnivores are Secret Vegans?

According to the Bible before there was sin and death all Animals and Humans were herbivores.

Genesis 1:30 "And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so."

Recently an atheist said to me:

Many modern animals, as well as many ancient ones, have mouths and digestive systems which are not only completely incapable of making use of [vegetation], but are specifically designed* to kill prey and digest meat.

You are making wild assumptions very prevalent to the modern mindset. You aren't the first I have heard this from. Just because an animal has sharp teeth doesn't mean it eats meat, it just means it has sharp teeth. In fact you need sharp teeth to eat certain vegetables.


Look how sharp the teeth are of the Panda and they eat bamboo.


How about this savage animal that flies around and ferociously rips into...fruit, called the fruit bat. Yet it's classified as a ‘carnivore’?


The polar bear is the most carnivorous North American bear and has a digestive system that screams for seal. In the wild, polar bears live an average of 15 to 18 years, in captivity though, they may live as high as 40. In captivity their diet consists of some read meat but also Lettuce, Apples, Oranges, Broccoli, Sweet Potato's, Celery, Tomatoes, Grapes, Watermelon, Rock melon, Barley, Cracked Corn, Cod Liver Oil, Carrots. And they digest all of it quite well.

Now this is an intelligent and witty atheist. This man can grasp the concepts of reality quite well, but it's the presuppositions that he holds so closely that get's his mind stuck when the evidence is in front of him. So the misconceptions and wild assumption is the problem and is what's happening these days. The evidence MUST fit their tiny little evolution box no matter what data pores out of the sides and onto the lab floor. At least at the end of the day they have their little box with big teeth.

*Thanks to Skulls Unlimited for their pictures of the skulls.