Climate change. Does it happen? Of course! Is it man-made? The news will tell you the science is settled. Now right off the bat that phrase should concern you. If science is settled, it’s not science. “Settled science” is anti-science as it disuades further study. Actual science welcomes new ideas and debate.
In my studies I quickly learned that when the news media reports a science story they normally quote mine for a juicy quote that will create clicks. (Click bait). The quote is normally part of the story, but when I would go to read the actual study or article the news report was based on I would find that the results did not infer the attention grabbing headline. Sometimes the complete opposite.
You see news sells through controversy. If they can get a heated debate going in the comments, thats a LOT of clicks. AND since news sells science, studies that report controversy get more funding. If you see anything or anyone saying “science has proven…”, ask for your money back. Science doesn’t prove anything. Science disproves or rules out possibilities to make the hypothesis more likely.
Climate change occurs, but the actual science as to what causes it (if you read it) is incredibly mixed and far from any consensus. Then you have to consider the political agenda. Fear sells in Democratic politics. We need bigger government to protect us from ourselves. There’s always an angle. Follow the money.
Does man cause climate change? You could possibly say that. Man rebelled against God. God sent a massive flood which enacted all weather calamities to follow. Every weather event today can trace its roots back to the flood. Does that mean God is punishing people for their sins today through hurricanes? No. It means we live in a world where hurricanes happen because we live in a broken world in need of a savior.
Do we need to take care of our planet? Absolutely! But God has already told us how it all ends, and it’s not from man made climate change. Do not buy into the fear.
The following is an exchange I had with someone on Facebook after I posted this to my personal profile. Their comments are in bold.
Sooo because God is going to end the world and not climate change (even though lots of people die in God’s ending… Earthquakes that shake the entire planet and all) We should take care of our planet but not believe we did it because skepticism.
I am a scientist. My work, my life is based on the physical universe God made. Did man contribute to climate change in a way that has heated the oceans and melted glaciers? Yes. That is something that science has in fact lead towards the most likely possibility. Has the planet been getting “better” since we as humans have been fighting our man-made contribution to climate change? Yes!! Check out the story of refrigerants we used to use that were messing up the molecular make-up of our atmosphere.
Does this post spur humans to act because of their mistakes? No. As much as the news bugs me because I read the studies not just listen/watch the news. Their panic sells, but also their panic that they have whipped the public into has done good things. It has informed the public/senators to do something about it. Which is a main contribution to “green” energy. Does money change the hearts and minds of politicians? Yes. It is always some seedy organisation looking to just get rich? Not always. Also if you can make money on making the planet a better place that is the whole point right. Using our natural resources costs something. It is not free. We should use our economy to save our planet. We should use our political system to help fix the molecular make up of the atmosphere when we send it out of whack with our economy and policies.
Politics and economics are not bad things in themselves. Try not to demonize them when we talk about solutions to real problems.
I’m against the fear mongering that’s all. I’m for truth. First truth says we are not the cause of the demise of this planet. We may have done some things that have hurt the environment and we should work to fix those when we learn of them as much as possible. You say fear produces action and so is justified. I think it produces fake or short lived action. I believe truth produces the most actions. When someone believes something undoubtedly, they will stop at nothing. But…if you don’t have enough truth, fear can be a helpful seller. Again, we need a bigger government to protect us from our stupidity…and we’ll pay them more to do it to.
Just as there are studies you can cite showing man made climate change, there are studies I can cite showing the opposite. Study bashing is boring and doesn’t prove or do anything. But how can there be studies that show opposites. You know it happens all the time, right? My theory is human bias.
I have read studies on both sides, but I also know it is not just throwing studies back and forth it is the overwhelming evidence that leads to the conclusion humans have unequivocally been a leading contribution to climate change. Did we do it alone? No. Did we do a large percentage of it? Yes. I have a deep rooted belief in our flaws as humans. Scientists believe the truth of their study. Humans on the other hand most often have apathy for the situation unless you can prove how it harms them individually because we are selfish creatures. So your belief in the goodness of man to fix their wrong when pointed out to them in my life has been proved to be wrong. Your faith in humanity is wasted. We suck. We don’t care. We would party into our own destruction. It is the job of those that fight for truth to be applied to these apathetic humans. The only way to get an apathetic human to do anything is by fear.
I am against fear mongering as well, but I am not the only fighter. I fight for local changes. I am not a national fighter as much as I disagree with their practices. They get results. Solar credits have not only made solar competitive, but it has driven down costs of manufacturing and dropped money in the market to make it profitable without credits. So in that case a short term solution lead to a long term solution.
Also I never said if fear produces action it is justified. I said I don’t have an issue with it because I am down here fighting to fix our planet from apathetic jerks. I am too busy to fix the fear that media makes money off of. I would rather solve real problems like people losing their homes on the coast due to ocean waters increasing in temperature and height.
If you have an army of undoubting believers you can do amazing things, but just like Christianity has Christians who are apathetic to their community and only care about their personal salvation. You are never gonna find that.
Your human bias of studies is white washed out of meta studies of climate change studies that agree HUMANS ARE A LEADING CONTRIBUTION TO CLIMATE CHANGE. Meta studies are a study of all the studies. They collect all the data and come their own conclusion with all the data and it is that conclusion.
I always take issue with studies and conclusions based on extrapolations. Even if man is contributing now, it requires extrapolations to come to the conclusion that it will severely harm the environment. I understand the logic of that, but reality infers that so many unknowns factors can majorly change the conclusion.
For example, the age of the Earth is calculated using extrapolations. Rocks decay at a given rate today, using that rate and extrapolating into the past we get an age of 4.5 billion years. But that extrapolation ignores any Biblical possiblities that God intervened in the process and/or created things in an aged state necessary for the immediate sustaining of life. Studies that extrapolate make sense logically, but they don’t necessarily equal truth.
Yeah your interpretation of the Bible and how God could have interacted with the physical world is not something we agree on so I don’t think it is a good point to work off of.
I believe the Bible. I believe God created the cosmos. I also believe thata new earth creationism doesn’t make sense to what the world around us tells us. God’s world. Words can be interpreted in many different ways, but scientific constants and laws of the universe can’t really be interpreted any other way. I choose to bend language and explode my imagination and God’s power rather than limiting humans understanding of the universe God made. God is crazy awesome. I believe he is capable of interacting in our world without it having to go against what we have observed in his physical universe.
After all it says God created the universe and everything in it. Next big event garden stuff
Not God created the universe then changed the constants of his universe so some sticklers to my word that only wish to read the stories literally can age out the world.
What it says is God created in six days, made Adam on the sixth day, then gives a 4000 year geneology from Adam to Jesus who lived 2000 years ago. To come to any other conclusion is to force your own interpretation onto the text. I do not believe there is a single piece of evidence against a young earth perspective. Of course their are faulty interpretations based on extrapolations that ignore the Bible as a historical record.
That’s my point. You can ignore certain evidences and make extrapolations to give you conclusions that may not be true. I believe that happens with the age of the Earth looking backwards and climate change looking forwards.
I don’t think Genesis is meant to be literal history. That is our different perspectives. I think it is a story we can learn from. I have never thought we should take it literally because it doesn’t make sense literally. I believe God meant to make sense not to change. He is immutable.
I am not ignoring the genealogy when I take it as a story, it just doesn’t mean as much to me as it does to you.
You don’t think Genesis is meant to be taken as literal history because of your preexisting belief in an old earth and evolution. You recognize the two are telling different stories and you side with consensus science despite the continual warnings in the scripture about siding with man. I’m not anti science, I’m pro truth and that requires looking at all angles. If you interpret the evidence in the world using Genesis as your hypothesis, then it all lines up. There is no need to interpret it as allegory.
how do you know with 100% certainty you are not forcing a perspective on the text that is just not there. Like what if God’s day in Genesis is not our day? A day is a revolution around the sun, but the sun had not been created yet so you are forcing a definition that had not been defined yet.
If Genesis is allegory it still lines up with science. There is no conflict. I didn’t have to change any definitions. I just read the text and looked at the world and made sense of it.
A day is not a revolution around the sun, it is a spinning on its own axis. A sun is not required.
Sorry let me correct myself. How can you have a day a revolution without a starting point? The sun
I can spin a ball without another ball in the room.
As for the Ark, I’ve not actually heard this claim before. How many animals are the supposing was on the Ark? The normal claim I hear is between 1-2000 with the Ark being capable of holding close to 100,000. I know of another feasibility study (done by a secular university) that showed the Ark would have worked.
I don’t want you to get the assumption that because I am a creationist I am missing out on the wonders of science. To me, becoming a creationist opened up science to an amazing degree I never thought possible. Now it has meaning and purpose behind it, instead of mindless and accidental. I’m glad you find wonder in science. I would never want that to change. I believe we are to study the earth and figure out more things about how it works, but not to trump God’s definitive word on the matter. His word is the ultimate authority and the final say on all matters.
Here’s the biggest issue with evolutionary science. If it is true, then God created cancer and called it “very good”. If the 4.5 billion years of creation has to be fit into the creation week of Genesis allegorically, then so does all the history of pain, disease, suffering, and death. Then after the creation, God calls it all “very good”. If you go with my understanding, God does create a world “very good”, free of pain and suffering. Man brings those things into the creation. So the big question is: is God to blame for creating the world this way, or did we mess it up? If you believe in evolution, you have no choice but to blame God. BUT this goes against so much of his character and invalidates so many passages.
I do not mind entertaining other interpretations, but if they create contradictions with later passages – that is where I draw the line. God’s word can’t have contradictions or it is no longer God’s word. God’s word calls death an enemy. So is it an enemy or part of the process of creation and “very good”? Which is it?
YES and a little bit no. Let me explain…
Yes, there are some human factors that are contributing to the decline of our natural resources. There are also some natural factors that just happen on our planet from time to time and naturally recover itself as well. There is good science to suggest both. Should we make changes to help cut down the depletion of our natural resources by human consumption? Sure! Why not? What we shouldn’t do is buy into the fear-mongering that if we don’t change we will destroy the planet for our children. That is obviously an unbiblical position.
Those that know the Bible know how this all ends. We know that Jesus returns to bring his people home. Doesn’t that suggest that his people do not die out by the depletion of natural resources before His return?? Does that mean we should be irresponsible with what we’ve been entrusted with? No, of course not.
Some creationists have been weary of global warming science due to the same assumptions being used in evolution science. They take a very small amount of historical data and extrapolate it out to virtually create a scenario that is unseen. Evolution does that to our past and global warming does that to our future. I understand their point and concern.
Some see global warming as an excuse liberals use to advance their agenda. Maybe there is some truth to that. Liberals are classicly known as being less biblically minded. Just as evolution science leaves God out of the picture, global warming science leaves God out as well. Biblically-minded Christians get concerned at both of these positions. We know that God is in control, and that He has a plan that no man can alter.
Should we do something about human over consumption? Yes, of course. Should we buy into a fear-mongering campaign about the end of civilization by some godless liberals? Of course not!
“I’m sure God doesn’t want to withhold something so beautiful to me. It’s just a fruit on a tree; everyone knows there’s nothing wrong with that.” – said Adam. Human reasoning and worldly influence fail. There was nothing wrong with the fruit, it was wrong to eat it because God said so, period. If God says something is wrong, no amount of human reasoning or worldly influence should be able to change that. There was a lot of chatter recently about the new pope and how maybe he will usher in a new reign of acceptance and modernization. The underlying message many people were trying to communicate was that maybe this new pope will finally ‘get with the times’ and agree with homosexuality. This implies that culture should shape religious doctrine. Does that seem right? If God is real and He sets the rules, then does it really follow that we have the right to define what those are and are not?
Revisionists are trying to make the claim that when the Bible talks about homosexuality being an abomination that it is talking about only in cases of rape. This explanation does not hold up to critical scrutiny. Why would the authors single out homosexual rapists as an abomination and not all rapists? Some say “an abomination” is not the same as a sin. Fine, I can accept that – but if God thinks it is an abomination, then I want nothing to do with it and will flee from it. Accepting it is the polar opposite of fleeing from it. If I need some scholar’s two cents on the matter to distinguish what the Bible is really trying to tell me, then there’s no point in my reading it at all. God would not have given me a guidebook that needed a doctorate to interpret. No matter how you spin it, the Bible clearly describes homosexuality as unpleasing to God.
In the beginning God created male and female with the purpose of procreating and filling the whole earth. Homosexuals do not honor this commandment. Skeptics are quick to snap back – what about barren people, does God hate them? No. In the original creation, men and women were not created barren and were never intended to suffer from such a problem. All suffering, all problems we experience today are a result of us breaking our covenant with God in the Garden of Eden. Suffering today is a reminder of the broken world we live in, and how much more we need to come back into God’s will. Compromising his will even more will do the exact opposite of this.
The church has lost hold of the culture because of our prior willingness to compromise. The answer is not to compromise more as the people hoping for a ‘progressive’ pope would offer. The answer is the same as Martin Luther proclaimed – a reformation back to the word of God on all matters. Jesus always answered an issue with “it is written”. The temptation is the same as Adam and Eve faced in the Garden from the serpent: “did God really say….”? The answer is simple and not up for debate. It is written “do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman.” Period.
As insensitive as it may sound, your personal opinion on the issue doesn’t matter. Society’s opinion on the issue doesn’t matter. The pressure to conform comes from this idea that morality evolves. Atheists need an evolving morality to make a case for their morals outside of God. A Christian does not need to subscribe to evolving morals, and should not. Jesus said that in the end times it will become like the days of Noah – not one righteous. Moral compromise will get us there quickly! It can only take one generation to lose the culture. You can see it happening today before your eyes.
There is nothing wrong with taking a position against homosexuality. There is something wrong with hating any group or person! If one qualification of me loving someone was to agree 100% with every position they take, then we’re going to have a bad time. I don’t know anyone with whom I agree 100% on everything with. Does that mean I don’t love anyone?? Christians on both sides of this issue have approached it poorly in the past. Marriage should have never become a part of the political world. I don’t see why we can’t have government-led civil unions for anyone/everyone and then if a religious person wants to hold a marriage ceremony as well, then they can. Yes, there could still be “gay marriages” if that church it was performed in was willing to do it – which several are. How does this not solve the whole debate? It takes the marriage debate out of politics, it puts unions on a level playing field governmentally, and still allows heterosexual and homosexual marriages at the religious level.
Although I personally disagree with practicing homosexuality and see it as one of the topics revisionists are using to create even more compromise in the church, I also don’t believe I have the right to withhold government-protected legal statuses from anyone. If a vote for civil unions came up for me I would vote for it. If a vote for gay marriage came up I would vote against it. It is in no means an attempt to withhold any rights from anyone. It is simply my opinion (based on the Bible) of what marriage is and is not. If other churches or religious institutions want to define it differently, they are welcome to. But if the government is going to ask my opinion I am going to give it. This does not make me a bigot or a homophobe. This makes me committed to my religious convictions, a right guaranteed and protected by the constitution.
I absolutely love my homosexual brothers and sisters. We all suffer from our own issues. Unfortunately homosexuality is just the cause of the moment getting a lot of attention. It is no greater a sin than eating one particular fruit in the garden of Eden. But God has said no, and I have no right and no interest to reinterpret that to fit in with society and make you or I feel more comfortable.
“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” – 2 Timothy 3:16.
Postmodernism has been a topic I have wanted to write about for quite a while now. I believe it is the root of many of the issues in the church today. Wikipedia defines postmodernism broadly as “a skeptical interpretive stance through which to view any product of human culture.” The article goes on to say “postmodernism take the relativistic position that there is no absolute truth.” This is a big problem for the church. Obviously the Bible claims to be the one supreme truth. Jesus makes no hesitation in claiming that he is the only true path to God (John 14:6). Therefore to a Christian, right off the bat, post modernistic techniques which look to skeptically reinterpret Biblical claims ought to be rejected.
Let me preface this next section by explaining that I do not think it is unhealthy to question things in the Bible. For me, questioning the Bible has been the times I have grown the most. People oftentimes become overwhelmed with the amount of skeptical material available. There are tons of websites devoted to “debunking” the Bible. They list pages of information that most often make claims of apparent contradiction upon contradiction in the text. If the text contradicts itself it, it cannot be reliable information right? Unfortunately a lot of skeptics end their search here feeling fulfilled that their questioning was valid. Here’s where human nature plays in. If we can find anyway to show something in the Bible incorrect, then we don’t have to be held accountable for that! We have an invested desire to show it false, therefore we jump at any explanation we find that settles it for us. What those that do this do not realize is that it is just as easy to Google “answers to Biblical contradictions”. If you study those answers what you will realize real quickly is that a contradiction needs to be proven. If there is any other possible and rational explanation, then a contradiction is not proven. A lot of the claimed contradictions do not take the timeframe culture into account and many ignore context clues that answer the contradiction.
Christianity is a religion about surrender. It is all about surrendering our ideas about how we think the world SHOULD work to the revelation in the scriptures about how it DOES work. Absolute truth most certainly exists. If you are of the camp that says “I don’t believe in absolute truth”, I can simply turn around and ask you if that statement is absolutely true or not! It is a laughable and untenable position to hold. For those who claim it does not exit, they are left with the unanswerable question of under what situations is sexual abuse of a child acceptable. It is much more defendable to say: under no conditions is it ever alright to sexually abuse a child. Absolute truth exists.
Let’s look at some examples of how postmodernism has infiltrated the church. Obviously on this site we deal with the creation/evolution debate quite a bit. Adherents to Christianity tend to try and get skeptics to compromise the Bible from the very first chapters. If they can successfully show that the Bible is not reliable from the very beginning, then they can start to convince you of the rest little by little. When you destroy the foundations, the house crumbles eventually. The Bible, in and of itself, obviously describes a rapid creation within recent history. In fact the timeline is extremely well documented. It takes outside influence to come to any other conclusion about history. A Christian is going to have to decide what they believe about the Bible in general. Is it the word of God or the word of man? If you are of the camp that it is the word of man – how do you determine what parts should affect your lifestyle and which you can discard? It sounds to me as if it would leave it up to personal preference. I don’t think truth works like that. As someone who already faithfully accepts the miraculous salvation story of Jesus based on the written record in the Bible, I see no reason to reject other parts of it equally unseen by my own eyes. I find it much more religiously safe and intellectually defendable to simply accept the Bible as absolute truth then to decide for myself which parts are true or not. I cannot defend my belief in Jesus consistently while rejecting something like the flood. I would not be taken serious in a real debate. Of course I do not believe things should be accepted blindly either. I’ve written over 150 articles about how to defend the Bible from the very first chapters. I have seen no theological or scientific reason to reject anything written in the Bible while at the same time finding bountiful information that keeps confirming the scriptures over and over.
Another area postmodernism is infiltrating the church is in the debate over homosexuality. There are some who would actually construct arguments to show that the Bible never meant to be against it. The Bible read plainly is obviously not supportive of same-sex unions. If postmodernists can twist something so obvious to say the exact opposite, isn’t it apparent that they could then twist ANYTHING?
Take the flood. Postmodernists have reinterpreted the flood as a local flood instead of global. That invalidates the entire story. Water covered all the high hills… and then what dropped off?? Everything with the breath of life in it outside the ark was destroyed… except what 100 miles away?? I will destroy this creation I made… except what everything outside 100 miles is fine? Collect two of every animal… why not just move them out of the flood region?? No. I have no problem with different interpretations as long as they are consistent with all other scriptures and do not purposely create contradictions.
To sum it all up, postmodernists are seekers. They want the truth, but are not sure of how to find it. They turn their ears to any doctrine that seems to match how they already view the world. If they personally think homosexuality is acceptable, then they are going to reject any doctrine stating otherwise. But how do they know if the doctrine they just rejected IS the truth? They’ve biased out the truth in exchange for something that will confirm their starting assumptions. But if God is real and does rule this universe, do you really think that is the accurate way to come to the truth? In other words – is the truth supposed to change you, or are you supposed to change the truth? The Bible talks about this revisionist history subject in 2 Timothy 4:3 – “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.” When Jesus was ever confronted with those wishing to change his stances, his response was always “it is written” taking everything back to the scriptures – let’s do the same!
The following is a collection of some of my favorite saved resources for Biblical apologetics. I thought it would be a good time to share these with my readers for your use as well. I’ve included each link along with an excerpt from each page for a little preview. Beyond these specific links below, the main young-earth creation websites for thousands of articles are Answers in Genesis and Institute for Creation Research. Enjoy!
The difference between “species” and “kind”
The evidence is forcing evolutionists to admit the severe inadequacy of mutation and selection, but these same processes are being picked up and used by creationists. What would Darwin say about that? Would he object to his ideas and observations being used in Biblical perspective? Darwin did muse occasionally about the role of a Creator. But, of course, we’ll never know whether he would be willing to consider the Biblical framework as the more-logical inference from our present knowledge of genetics and ecology. We can be sure of this, however: a man as thoughtful and devoted to detail and observation as Darwin was, would be willing to “think about it.”
7 Basic Questions Science Cannot Answer
1. Does the Source, the Creator, God exist? Unknown
2. Does such a thing as a soul exist? If so, is it immortal? Science does not know the answer.
3. What is time, space, matter, energy? Opinions are sharply divided.
4. Is our world eternal and endless or, on the contrary, is it limited within time and space? Science does not possess the necessary data to give a definite answer.
5. Why should I do good and not evil, if evil appeals to me and I can be sure of escaping punishment? The answers are totally unintelligible.
6. How can science be used to avert the possibility of wars and tyranny? Silence.
7. How can social harmony be attained with the least human cost? Mutually exclusive proposals are put forward that resemble each other only in that they are all equally unrelated to pure science.
Answers in Genesis responds to an atheist
ATHEIST: Most science i know starts from what it doesn’t know and finds answers. NOT the other way around. Thats science; speculation, hypothesis, evidence (!!!) TESTABILITY (if possible) and theory. NOT finding god in the gaps.
AIG: As a qualified scientist and senior science educator, I hope you are not trying to lecture me on scientific methodology. You have neglected to state your own science qualifications. The problem seems to reside in the familiar confusion between operational science and origins science. Operational science is indeed concerned with the formulation of testable hypotheses, though rarely starting from what we don’t know—in practice we usually start from what we do know and use this to find out new things that we didn’t know. These hypotheses are repeatedly tested and reported so that other scientists can check the results. Now how does this apply to ‘goo-to-you’ evolution? Have you been able to reproduce the conditions under which lifeless inorganic material evolved onto living organic material? In what sense are such matters testable? If they are not testable, then how scientific are such ideas? In fact, they form part of the presuppositional bias with which you filter the evidence.
Comparisons between what the Bible says and evolution
Gen 2:3 Creation was completed.
Evolution is a continuing process.
Gen 1:29 Man originally was a vegetarian
Man originally was a meat-eater.
Rom 5:12 Death resulted from man’s sin.
Death existed long before man.
Evidence for the Bible from archeology
Herod the not-so Great….
A Chronological Map from Creation to 4th Century AD
Biblical Characters whose existence has been confirmed from archeological or secular historical sources
|Caiaphas||Mt. 26:3 – High priest during time of Jesus||1. Josephus tells us his name was Joseph Caiaphas2. Ossuary found in Jerusalem in 1990 has Hebrew inscription that reads AJoseph, son of Caiaphas.|
Extremely large variations of atmospheric C14 during last glacial period
Responses to Old-Earth arguments including chalk beds, etc.
The very purity of these chalk beds should cause one to question the uniformitarian paradigm. It is very hard to imagine how the very high level of purity of calcium carbonate could have been maintained over millions of years without the incorporation of significant amounts of contaminate material? Rather, given a period of relative calm following a series of shortly spaced massive watery catastrophes on a global scale (as indicated by the Biblical account and numerous extra-Biblical cultural legends of a Noachian Flood), the oceans would have been both relatively warm and nutrient rich (from all of the killed, buried, and floating organic material). Such a situation would have produced massive algal blooms on a global scale such as the world has never seen before or since
Answers to over 140 commonly-used apparent Biblical contradictions
Paul is not disapproving marriage! He is simply saying that it is good to be unmarried. Saying it is good to not marry is not saying it is bad to marry. Being unmarried is good in the sense that particular blessings can stem from it (in fact, Paul even describes celibacy as a “gift”). However, another set of blessings can stem from being married.
Marco Polo lived in China for 17 years, around 1271 A.D. Upon his return from Asia, he reported of families raising dragons, yoking them to royal chariots for parades and special occasions, and using dragon parts for medicinal purposes.8 Interestingly, the twelve signs of the Chinese zodiac are animals, eleven of which are everyday, extant creatures (rat, horse, dog, ox, rabbit, tiger, snake, ram, monkey, rooster, dog, and pig.) The twelfth is the dragon. Why would the Chinese include the “mythological” dragon with these common living animals? And we trust Marco for other history why not also dinosaurs or “Dragons”?
AIG: The Bible just another book?
Remember, the argument is not “The Bible is the Word of God because it says it is.” Rather, the argument is “The Bible is the Word of God because it says it is and any alternative leads to absurdity.” It’s this last part of the argument that closes the loopholes and provides the proof that the Bible really is what it claims to be, whereas counterfeit religious books fall short.
CARM: Non-biblical accounts of New Testament events and/or people
1. Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?, a Jewish historian) mentions John the Baptist and Herod – Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 5, par. 2
“Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness.”
Common objections to Christianity from Skeptics
Does the Old Testament Endorse Slavery?
i) The OT doesn’t endorse “slavery.” Lawmakers don’t endorse everything they regulate. Rather, the law sets boundaries. The law doesn’t prescribe an ideal.1ii) “Slavery” is ambiguous. This can stand for very different arrangements. In the OT you have:
a) Indentured service for insolvency or property crimes. This is a form of financial restitution.
b) Enslavement for POWs or war captives. This is more humane than executing POWs. Repatriating enemy soldiers isn’t feasible inasmuch as they will simply regroup and resume hostilities.
c) Acquisition of foreigners. This is unenviable. However, living conditions in the ANE were harsh. Poverty and famine were widespread. Better to be a slave in Israel, with the legal protections and provisions afforded you, than to starve to death. These laws don’t exist in a vacuum. They need to be understood in relation to the socioeconomic challenges of survival in the ANE.
Proof that God Exists
Contrary to how it may appear, this website is in no way trying to prove that God exists, I am only using this website to demonstrate that there IS proof that God exists. The proof of God’s existence offered here is not meant to satisfy the demands of those who would put God on trial, but is meant to expose the suppression of truth.
100 Prophesies Fulfilled
The Biblical prophecies featured on this site range from the Messianic prophecies fulfilled by Jesus Christ about 2000 years ago, to other types of prophecy fulfilled throughout history by the land of Israel, the people of Israel, and the nations around Israel. We also have commentaries for Bible prophecies that affect the world as a whole, and others that are to be fulfilled with the return of Christ.
Prophesy fulfillment statistical reliability
Since the probability for any one of these prophecies having been fulfilled by chance averages less than one in ten (figured very conservatively) and since the prophecies are for the most part independent of one another, the odds for all these prophecies having been fulfilled by chance without error is less than one in 102000 (that is 1 with 2000 zeros written after it)!
Phylogeny: rewriting evolution
I’ve looked at thousands of microRNA genes, and I can’t find a single example that would support the traditional tree,” he says. The technique “just changes everything about our understanding of mammal evolution”.
Scientific evidence for a worldwide Flood
One of the strongest pieces of evidence for a worldwide flood is the existence of what Rupke termed “polystrate fossils.” Such fossils are found all over the world. They usually consist of fossil trees that were buried upright, and which often traverse multiple layers of strata such as sandstone, limestone, shale, and even coal beds. 1,2,3,4 They range in size from small rootlets to trees over 80 feet long. 3 Sometimes they are oblique in relation to the surrounding strata, but more often they are perpendicular to it. For example, at Joggins, Nova Scotia, polystrate tree (and root) fossils are found at various intervals throughout roughly 2,500 feet of strata. Many of these are from 10-20 feet long, 5,6 and, at least one was 40 feet long.
Quotes on Scientists and Bias
When dealing with people remember you are not dealing with creatures of logic, but with creatures of emotion, creatures bristling with prejudice, and motivated by pride and vanity. ~ Dale Carnegie
Who has deceiv’d thee so oft as thy self? ~ Benjamin Franklin
People only see what they are prepared to see. ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson
The Wyatt Museum
Information and images on Ron Wyatt’s supposed discoveries of Noah’s Ark, Sodom/Gomorrah, the Ark of the Covenant, the Red Sea crossing, and Mount Sinai.
Creationists are often told that intelligent design principles and creation science cannot be taught in public schools because it would amount to the government endorsing that particular religion, and that would supposedly violate the separation of church and state. Well first, does teaching about slavery mean the government is endorsing slavery? Does teaching about assassinations mean the government endorses assassinating people? The logic fails to start with. Beyond this glaring inconsistency, opponents will argue that there is nothing scientific about ID or creation, so it should not be allowed in a science classroom. Well first I believe science has been improperly redefined to only include naturalistically testable ideas when it originally was just a term for knowledge in general. Knowledge can come from many sources, only one of which is empiricism. But for argument’s sake let’s reluctantly give them these three principles: the separation forbids it, religion cannot be taught and only naturalistic/empirical ideas can be taught in science. Given their own restrictions, I posit that evolution must be removed immediately.
Outside of the worship of a specific deity, religion is also defined as “details of belief as taught or discussed”. Belief is defined as “an acceptance that a statement is true, a firmly held opinion”. Can the theory of evolution be defined as a “firmly held opinion”? Theory is defined as “a supposition or a system of ideas to explain something”. Supposition is defined as “an uncertain belief”. Now, we’re getting into a circle, aren’t we? Although I fully understand the scientific understanding of the word theory (that it is our best naturalistic explanation of the evidence), it could also be defined based on dictionary.com as “an uncertain firmly held opinion”. Is evolution a religion, “a belief taught”? Sounds like it. In fact Sir Karl Popper, a famous scientist/philosopher who helped develop the idea of falsification said this: “it is impossible for science to prove anything, because science is based on experiments and observations, both of which can be flawed. Often, those flaws don’t become apparent to the scientific community for quite some time … so even the most secure scientific statements have never been proven.” (http://blog.drwile.com/?p=5725). We are teaching unproven concepts as fact when they can also be defined as religion. Strike one.
Let’s move onto argument two: there is nothing scientific about creation / intelligent design. There is a series available on Netflix called “Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution” that spends three hours interviewing a myriad of scientists on breaking down the complexity found in today’s observable animal kingdom that could not have added up over time. It had to either be all there, or nothing at all. That’s a lot of time to spend on a topic that there is “nothing scientific about”. DNA, RNA, and protein enzymes are in a never-ending loop. One without the other would mean life as we know it would cease to exist. See this image (http://evidencepress.com/evpr/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/DNA-Cycle31.jpg) for a graphic representation of it. We could write and have written books on irreducible complexity, but that’s not all we have.
How about extrapolations? They use extrapolations when they talk about old ages of the earth. Is that ‘scientific’? They measure rates today and assume consistency and extrapolate back through history to tell you how old things are. I realize this is an oversimplification, but for time’s sake that’s the basics. Well I can do that too. We measure the rate at which salt is being added to the oceans yearly, we measure the rate the moon is receding from the earth at a few centimeters per year, we measure the shrinking of the sun at five feet per hour, we measure the pressure of oil in the ground, we measure the decay of earth’s magnetic field, and on and on; and what we find is that when you extrapolate these measurements back through time the earth cannot be anywhere near the age they say. What’s less scientific about those measurements and more scientific about their measurements? Nothing. Both are based on modern observation extrapolated back through time. Now there are issues you could raise with each one of these, but there are issues I can raise with their extrapolations as well. The point is extrapolations are not a valid science, and are only presented one-sided. That is either ignorance or blatant deception. Strike two.
Now, what about that separation of church and state? Today it has been re-envisioned by the Supreme Court to mean that the government needs to police what is and what is not allowed in public arenas. That was not the original intent. The phrase is taken from a letter from President Thomas Jefferson to the Baptist Association of Connecticut. Jefferson used the phrase to ensure that the government will never infringe upon their freedom to worship freely. The 1st Amendment simply reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Congressional and military chaplains now must submit their written prayers for government approval before being read. In 1995, U.S. district judge Samuel Kent declared that any student using the name of Jesus during a prayer at a high school graduation in Texas would be arrested adding: “Anyone who violates these orders…is going to wish that he or she died as a child when this court get through.” Free exercise doesn’t exist anymore. The separation of church and state is not supposed to hinder religious expression; it’s supposed to protect it. So, why again can’t we discuss the possibility of intelligence behind our origins in schools? In fact we discuss intelligent design all the time. Do we teach that computers designed themselves? Do we teach that we landed on the moon by random chance… of course not. Those things were planned and designed. That’s logical, but when the designer becomes God the rules change apparently. The wall of separation has been abused and misinterpreted. Strike three, you’re out!
To recap: evolution is a belief system currently being taught as fact, intelligent design has scientific aspects that are being ignored because they don’t align with majority consensus, and the separation of church and state has been abused and misinterpreted. So, what do we make of this? Do I really want creationism taught in the public schools? This is difficult. Yes, I do… but I want it taught correctly which is unlikely since atheistic teachers are going to bring their bias, and theistic teachers are going to bring their biases. It’s likely that this issue can never be taught objectively because it’s more philosophy than science. The Supreme Court will tell us we can’t teach creationism because it would be indoctrination and public schools need to remain neutral. What they are not willing to admit is that the schools are already indoctrinated with a religious paradigm: the religion of secular humanism.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with teaching the concepts of evolution, but our country needs to be honest and admit that is no more science than creation or intelligent design is. The difference? Your tax dollars fuel evolution. And why? Think about it. What is one major scientific breakthrough that has bettered this world due to this concept of large-scale evolution? That’s not what it’s about. It’s about a society that wants to create an illusion of a world without God. Why would they want to do that? If there is no God, there is no judgment.
“For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.” – 2nd Timothy 4:3