No Apologizing

Christian Apologetic, and Social Commentary in a world gone mad

Tag Archives: creation

The Little “Mermaid”


So last weekend we were down at the lake and happened to be watching the River Monster marathon.  We saw a promo for this show called Mermaids.  It looked interesting

YEAH! I came from a monkey!

so we decided to give it a watch.  This show postulated that in addition to evolving into humans, they also evolved into mermaids.  In other woods, when the human race was evolving, some went into the woods, and others went to the sea.  Most of the show was animation of how they evolved and what they looked like in their transitional states.

The show based all of this on key evidence found from the insides of a shark.

They found a single fin – this is where the feet had bonded together through evolution.

They found a human rib cage.

They found a hand.

They found tools.

And the most incredible part…they found three skull fragments that were tiny.  They were then able to create an entire skull from it.

Of course their existence had been kept secret from us courtesy of the US Navy.  In fact…it was the Navy who was ruthlessly killing these Mermaids through some sort of sonar testing.

A few things stuck out to me while watching this show.

  1. The evidence was so phony that the whole thing appeared to be a hoax.  Almost like a Blair Witch Project for the Animal Planet.  As it turns out…if you watch the credits…it was a work of fiction.  Completely not true.
  2. People actually believe this to be true! The immediate reaction after the show was incredible.  People discussing the “evidence”.   All in the context that it appeared to be the real deal.

You know our stance on evolution.  If not, or you are new to this blog there are several posts that will refute the “science” of evolution.

The general reaction to mermaids demonstrates how ingrained the falsehood of evolution is in our global society.  Much like man made global warming; the science of evolution has been a perpetuated lie to show the world that God does not exist.  It is hard to contemplate how far down the rabbit whole the world has gone.  However, Mermaids demonstrates just how far down we have gone when millions of people watch it and believe it to be plausible.

But then again maybe there was something else behind it.  Maybe the entire point was to reinforce the idea of evolution even when what they were presenting was entirely false.  To further reinforce the idea of evolution.  To further ingrain it into this generation’s mind that evolution is truth thus perpetuating the notion that God does not exist.

Maybe that was their intention all along.

The Religion of Atheism


So for one of our classes Kevin and I are reading a book called “Legislating Morality”. This book takes a hard look at morality, relative morality, and an absolute moral law given by God. In this book I stumbled across a few quotes that I thought were interesting. The part of the book where these quotes are found focus on the “deity of evolution.” The overarching point is that evolutionists are atheists by nature, thus making evolution and atheism a belief system. Atheist’s strongly argue against this point, however a conclusion must be drawn as to the origin of the universe and man, and atheists (by definition) must accept evolution as the origin of both universe and man.

The Bible of Atheism?

The Bible of Atheism?

To illustrate this point consider the words of Charles Hodge: “What is Darwinism? It is atheism. This does not mean as before said that Mr. Darwin himself and all who adopt his views are atheists; but it means that his theory is atheistic; that the exclusion of design from nature is…tantamount to atheism”. This is logical and well-reasoned. If you believe in evolution, you deny the creation. If you deny the creation, you deny God. You can deny the logic presented by Hodge, but you cannot deny the direct conclusions of the fathers of Darwinism. They conclude that evolution in and of itself is a deity.
Consider the words of Darwin himself who wrote: “I speak of Natural selection as an active power or deity; but who objects to an author speaking of the attraction of gravity as ruling the movements of the planets?… It is difficult to avoid personifying nature.”
Alfred Wallace stated that “Natural Selection is supreme”. He went on to say “There is a power not only adequate to direct and regulate all the forces at work in living organisms but also the more fundamental forces of the whole material universe”
Thomas Huxley (Darwin’s bulldog) stated: “I can see no reason for doubting that all are coordinate terms of nature’s great progression, from formless to formed, from the inorganic to the organic, from blind force to conscious intellect and will”.
What must be the logical conclusion of the above individuals? God is dead, or more accurately, He never existed. Intellectualism and natural process rule everything. In other words “science” and natural selection are the new deity, the new creator, the new god. According to the premier evolutionist (Darwin), evolution has replaced God.
With atheism and evolution bound to one another we can see that atheists do, in fact, have a god to worship – and worship it, the do. Because not only does it give their own creation narrative it ultimately defines moral values as well.

Consider the following:
Friedrich Nietzsche: “God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, the murderers of all murderers, comfort ourselves?” He answered the question with the following “must not we ourselves become gods simply to seem worthy of it?”
With God (the moral law giver) dead, all absolute moral standards died with him.
Fyodor Dostoevsky stated the following: “If God does not exist, then everything is permitted”. This is quite true.
Consider the following statement: “If nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such cases all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile. But preservation goes hand in hand with the inexorable law that it is the strongest and the best who must triumph and that they have the right to endure. He who would live must fight. He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist”.
The above statement fits with the evolutionist ideology. Survival of the fittest, strongest will survive. The author of this text was Adolf Hitler. The Evolutionist/atheistic ideology was the foundation for the genocide of 12 million people. People who were “weak” and needed to be weeded out. With god dead anything is permitable, including genocide. In fact, one could convincingly argue that the theory of evolution is a foundational cause for most all racism today, but that will have to wait for another post.

Atheism is its own religion. Think about it. It has its own story of creation of the universe, and its own set of moral values because of this belief of creation. Are these not characteristics of a religion? These principles are religious in nature. The Bible defines creation, and comes with a set of moral values. In this sense Atheism, is just another religion.

SHARE THIS:

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Laminin: Chance or Design


So the last day or two I have been out looking at some atheist forums.  I wanted to see what atheists thought about laminin.  For a quick recap…Laminin is the glue that holds our body together, oh and the molecular structure is in the shape of a cross.  Anyway…back to the forums.  I went out to some atheist forums to see what they think.  Aside from the usual insults and superiority that most atheists had to offer the general consensus is that Laminin is merely a coincidence.

Chance or Design?

Chance or Design?

For an atheist to believe that laminin is a coincidence would make sense because it fits into their world view.  For an atheist everything in life would have to be the result of coincidence or chance.  There is no reason for things happening, they just happen.  This is their world view.  So it would make sense that they would look at something like laminin and believe that Christians see what they want to see, not what is real.

So is it chance….or design?  That is what it really comes down to.  For an atheist’s argument to hold true everything would have to be about chance.

When your eyes were created one million nerve endings left your eye to match with one million nerve ending in your brain.  This match up has to be perfect or you would not be able to see.  Think about the incredible statistic that allows you to see!  For every optic nerve there is a 1 in 1 million chance that it misses its match. That is just the beginning…I found this little tid bit…from here:

The 500 amino acids that make up an average-sized protein can be arranged in over 1 x 10^600 different ways (that’s the number ONE followed by 600 zeros)! This number is vastly larger than the total number of atomic particles that could be packed into the known universe. If we had a computer that could rearrange the 500 amino acids of a particular protein at the rate of a billion combinations a second, we would stand essentially no chance of hitting the correct combination during the 14 billion years evolutionists claim for the age of the universe. Even if our high-speed computer were reduced to the size of an electron and we had enough of them to fill a room measuring 10 billion light years square (about 1 x 10^150 computers!), they would still be exceedingly unlikely to hit the right combination. Such a “room” full of computers could only rearrange about 1 x 10^180 combinations in 300 billion years. In fact, even if all the proteins that ever existed on earth were all different, our “room” full of computers would be exceedingly unlikely to chance upon the combination of any one of them in a mere 300 billion years!

Chance or Design?

How about the ribozyme?  The ribozyme is an enzyme responsible for creating a chemical reaction.  Fairly important to the creation of life…meaning that it couldn’t happen without it.  Now let’s assume that each ribozyme is 300 nucleotides long and each position there could be  4 nucleotides present.  The chances of that ribozyme assembling are 4^300.  What to see what that number looks like?

4,149,515,568,880,990,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.00

That is 1 in that number above that the ribozyme would form.

Chance or design?

How about the probability of the occurrence of a universe in which life can form?  According to Roger Penrose the probability of the occurrence of a universe in which life can form is  1010123 .  Want to see what this looks like numerically?

1 chance in

1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Keep in mind that according to mathematic principle a probability of 1 in 1050 means zero probability.

Chance or Design?

SHARE THIS:

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Another discovery that changes everything…


The tooth that could change everything...or nothing.

Scientists are at it again.  Scientists have discovered a tooth that they speculate was a Homo Sapien. Doesn’t sound like big news?  Just wait.  This tooth is said to be dated to be at least 400,000 years old. Not that big of deal?  Just wait.  This would be the earliest homo sapien ever discovered by nearly 200,000 years. Starting to get interested?  Wait for it….. It was found in Israel. And the bomb drops.  Most human origin theories (non-biblical) place the origin of humans from Africa.  According to this discovery, the origins would be closer to Israel.  Interesting?  Here is the article if you are interested.

Now if you remember from a couple of months ago I wrote a piece basically poking fun at evolutionists for this exact same thing (MISSING LINK FOUND!).  Their version, the Nebraska Man discovered in 1922. Just to recap…the Nebraska Man was created from a single tooth discovery…sounds familiar already.  An entire evolutionary model was created based on that discovery.  The only problem was that it was the tooth of a pig.

Now, I am not saying that the recent discovery in Israel is that of a pig.  What I am saying is that the “scientists” who presented the tooth, also presented a lot of speculation.  The tell tale sign…any time a scientist says further research is needed to solidify the claim…you should hit the pause button.

While we all want to look at this finding and say, “Look, we were right, evolution is bunk.  Your theories of origins are bunk! We told you so!”  It is not in our best interest to do so.  Honestly, shame on this scientist for coming forward saying that he found a tooth that disproves the current theories of origin, and changes the whole picture of evolution, followed by further research is needed to prove that though…  I somewhat understand why he would do that…additional funds to continue research.  Which he will more than likely get know.

I will be waiting for additional research to support his claim.

What else can be said?


Probably one of the more hotly contested topics discussed (when it comes atheist versus Christian) is that of evolution versus creation.  So many have discussed this topic, that as I was sitting thinking about  a post topic I wondered if there was anything I could add to the conversation.  Think about how hot this topic is.  School boards deny the teaching of creationism because it is based on faith.  School boards allowing evolution because it is based on “science.”  Hollywood has even taken up the banner with movies like Expelled and Religulous.  One has to wonder…why does the debate continue?  I think this is a fair question. 

The Bible offers a fairly simplistic explanation for how the universe began, “In the beginning God created”.  Nothing extraordinary…except for the fact that God created everything.  He had his hand in everything that was created.  Now, there are many different camps inside of Christianity when it comes to the interpretation of Genesis.  Some will look at 7 days as being a flat 7 days.  Others will look at the verse in the Bible that a day to us is 1,000 to god, and suggest that each day was 1,000 years…7 days = 7,000 years.  I am not going to focus on that difference here. 

What I would like to focus on is the response one might receive when having a conversation with someone who believes in evolution as opposed to creation. 

Most Evolution supporters will make the following statement “Overwhelming evidence supports this fact”.  If that is the case why is it then a theory?  Case and point look at this link.  Notice anything?  The first sentence of the second paragraph describes evolution as a fact.  My question then is why describe it as a theory as well (in the first paragraph)? 

ALL evolution defenders will tell you about the transitional form.  This is commonly known as the missing link.  Everyone has seen the picture of the chart showing the transition from monkey to man.  The truth is that there has been no evidence found that supports the theory of transitional forms.  This is the lynch pin of evolution.  Without it evolution can never be proven.

I find the idea of a “transitional form”  fascinating.  Man evolved from monkey.  Did that evolution stop?  Think about it.  If evolution is the reason that we are here, where are the living transitional forms from monkey to man?  Unless evolution just said…”okay I’m done” once man had taken present shape.  I mean, evolution has to be ongoing.  Meaning that the evolution of the monkey would be ongoing as well.  If this was the case (evolution) where is the living missing link?  If evolution is ongoing as evolutionists would describe, then surely evolution would be continuing for monkeys (and other species) as well.  Where is it?

Another fascinating question is “how”.  It is possible to “how” the evolution theory to extinction.  How?  By simply asking “how did that happen?” If you ask this question enough one must admit at some point the ultimate conclusion that evolution is nothing more than an improbable theory, not a fact as it is portrayed by many.

The fact of the matter, both Evolution and Creationism are a matter of faith! Evolution is NOT science… In fact, Creationism is technically more scientific!  In order for something to be “science” one must be able to observe and record the phenomena and reproduce it with a differing variables… (this is the very definition of the scientific method that most of us learned about in middle school).  No scientist has observed the macro-evolutionary process happen and they certainly have not been able to recreate the generation of life, nor have they been able to cause the mutatation of any species into another! However, if one accepts the biblical principle that there is a God, then it is plausible (even probable) that He then recorded His “observations” in a record that most Christians would agree is reliable and infallible… So, again, the Christian understanding of creation is technically more scientific than the theory evolution could ever hope to be!

Yeah, I know….when compared to some of the other articles written online this seems pretty simplistic.  I don’t have to be convinced that creation is right, because I know that it is.  Atheists that tell you that creation can’t be proven because it requires faith are deluding themselves.  It requires more faith to believe in evolution than it does creation.  Evolution involves too much chance for me.

The Bible…Good moral stories?


Have you ever been in a conversation about the Bible and hear a believer say “Some of the things in the Bible are good moral stories”.  How about a conversation with a non-believer that usually ends with “you believe that everything in the Bible is absolutely true?”  I certainly have.  What these people are usually implying is that some of the stories in the Bible are a little too fantastic to believe.  Nine times out of ten they are usually referring to Jonah, Noah or maybe even creation. 

The people described above are indirectly calling into question the inerrancy of the Bible.  If you are like me, you had never heard the word inerrancy and the Bible in the same sentence, let alone as truth.  In fact, up until a couple of years ago I would have been the person described above.  I used to look at the story of Noah, and the story of Jonah and say “wow, Really!?”  It was hard for me to accept the fact that a man would sit alive in the belly of a fish or that the world was flooded and Noah’s family was the only group that survived. 

If this is the first time that you are hearing the word inerrancy, the definition is simple.  According to the dictionary inerrancy means without error.  So what does inerrancy mean in the context of the Bible?  Well, if inerrancy means without error that means that in order for the Bible to be inerrant it has to be true.  The Bible has to be true.  Say it one more time and really let it soak in.  The Bible has to be true.  This includes all of the “stories” that are in the Bible. 

God is truth.  This is a pretty simple statement.  How do we know that God is truth?  He describes Himself as truth (Deuter. 32:4, Psalm 33:4, John 17:17). Meaning that truth is a characteristic/attribute of God.   What is the consequence of being truth?  That God cannot lie (Titus 1:2).  This provides the biblical foundation that God, and by extension God’s Word, is truth.  Pretty easy right?  God is truth, therefore God cannot contradict himself, and cannot lie.

Most people don’t hang their hats on this point when arguing against the inerrancy of the Bible.  What you will more traditionally hear from atheists primarily is something along these lines…”Your own Bible says that man will make mistakes.  Men wrote the Bible, so how can you say that the Bible is inerrant?”   If you have heard this statement before (I am sure many of you have) you should know that the premise of the question is incorrect.  This is a reflection of how half-truths can shape an opinion.  Man did not write the Bible alone.  The proof? 

2 Peter 1:21:

21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1:21, NIV)

Need more proof?

1 Corinthians 2:13

13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. (1 Corinthians 2:13, NIV).

NEED MORE PROOF? 

2 Timothy 3:16

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16, NIV).

The message behind these verses, while man put pen to paper so to speak, they were not writing, the Holy Spirit and God were writing.   So lets back up a second and recap.  We have God saying that he is truth and incapable of lying (Deuter. 32:4, Psalm 33:4, John 17:17, Titus 1:2), we have multiple verses saying that man alone did not write the Bible.  We have this written explicitly in 2 Timothy 3:16 that God BREATHED the scripture.  What is the conclusion to be drawn?  That scripture is truth.  No discussion, no qualifiers, no distinction on moral stories, or things of this nature.  SCRIPTURE IS TRUTH, according to the word breathed by God.  This tells us that the Bible is inerrant. 

The argument posed in this blog is a simplistic basic argument for the inerrancy of the bible using God’s word.  Skeptics will challenge truths in the Bible because they appear to be contradictory to other statements in the Bible.  In future blogs we can address some of these “discrepancies” (emphasis on quotes). 

As Christians, we run the danger of showing others that the Bible is errant.  Statements like “good moral story” and “a little too fantastic” will do nothing but demonstrate your own lack of faith in the holy word of God to those you are testifying to.  Ultimately the question that has to be posed is this, if the book of Jonah is not true, what else isn’t?  Go back to the word of God.  If Jonah is not true then God is not truth.  Which means that possibly other parts of the Bible are errant.  Which ones?  Who knows, but what we do know is that this thought process brings error to the word of God, which destroys the entire bible.  Seem fatalistic?  Think about it.  The life of Christ, true or false?  You are probably screaming true, right?  But what is more fantastic, a man living in the belly of a fish, or a divine pregnancy where God sent his son, who was of God to die, where he was crucified, raised from the dead, and ascended to heaven?  Get the point?  The next time you feel your mind thinking that creation, or Jonah, or Noah or ANY of the “fantastic stories” of the Bible are just that, remember 2 Timothy 3:16, and know that God is truth, you are not.

PLEASE NOTE:  For a more evidential and less philosophical argument that doesn’t rely upon the interpretation of any Bible verses/passages, check out Kevin’s post on manuscript evidence.

SHARE THIS:

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

%d bloggers like this: