Showing posts with label Apologetics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Apologetics. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Monday, June 29, 2009
Monday, June 01, 2009
John MacArthur: The Challenge of Science
Here is some completely awesome teaching by John MacArthur!
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
“Living Fossils”—Evolution’s Innate Circular Reasoning
From Apologetics Press:
"Another earthshaking find within the evolutionary community only spotlights once again the inherent irrationality of the faltering, fallacious theory. During a Southeast Asian expedition, retired Florida State University science professor, David Redfield, captured the first photos of the Laotian rock rat, once believed to have gone extinct more than 11 million years ago. The fossilized remains, collected previously from sites in Pakistan, India, Thailand, China, and Japan, were thought to verify this last known relative of a long-extinct family of rodents known as Diatomyidae (“Retired Professor Captures...,” 2006). Surprise, surprise—another alleged “ancestor” eliminated from the tattered evolutionary tree.
Observe the two contrasting, conflicting, mutually exclusive approaches to the created realm:
1. Evolution: All animals we see today are advanced forms of primitive precursors, and descendants of a single ancestor. As more advanced forms have evolved by means of adaptation, natural selection, survival of the fittest, and genetic mutation, the earlier forms were naturally displaced and disappeared. Fossils, millions of years old, represent life forms that were the evolutionary predecessors of present life forms, but which went extinct long ago.
2. Creation: God created a spectrum of animals during the six-day week of Creation. While reproducing only after their own “kind” (an ambiguous Hebrew term that likely parallels the modern taxonomic classification “family”), these animals were created with the genetic potential for producing a variety of other species, giving rise to the diversity of animal life presently on the planet. Along the way, due mostly to environmental factors, many animals have become extinct. However, other species have escaped detection by humans for centuries, only to be rediscovered in some remote area.
Which of these two viewpoints fits the actual physical facts? Obviously, the latter. Evolutionists repeatedly find themselves in the embarrassing position of discovering that the alleged evolutionary ancestors of current life forms, that supposedly went extinct millions of years ago, are in fact still living. They are forced to cover their tracks by inventing a self-contradictory, nonsensical term to identify these anomalies—in this case, “living fossils.” But that’s like a round square. Philosophers and logicians refer to such duplicitous posturing as irrational and “logical contradiction.” Evolutionists call it “science.”
REFERENCE
“Retired Professor Captures a ‘Living Fossil’ on Video” (2006), Research in Review, June 13, [On-line], URL: http://www.rinr.fsu.edu/rockrat/more.html."
"Another earthshaking find within the evolutionary community only spotlights once again the inherent irrationality of the faltering, fallacious theory. During a Southeast Asian expedition, retired Florida State University science professor, David Redfield, captured the first photos of the Laotian rock rat, once believed to have gone extinct more than 11 million years ago. The fossilized remains, collected previously from sites in Pakistan, India, Thailand, China, and Japan, were thought to verify this last known relative of a long-extinct family of rodents known as Diatomyidae (“Retired Professor Captures...,” 2006). Surprise, surprise—another alleged “ancestor” eliminated from the tattered evolutionary tree.
Observe the two contrasting, conflicting, mutually exclusive approaches to the created realm:
1. Evolution: All animals we see today are advanced forms of primitive precursors, and descendants of a single ancestor. As more advanced forms have evolved by means of adaptation, natural selection, survival of the fittest, and genetic mutation, the earlier forms were naturally displaced and disappeared. Fossils, millions of years old, represent life forms that were the evolutionary predecessors of present life forms, but which went extinct long ago.
2. Creation: God created a spectrum of animals during the six-day week of Creation. While reproducing only after their own “kind” (an ambiguous Hebrew term that likely parallels the modern taxonomic classification “family”), these animals were created with the genetic potential for producing a variety of other species, giving rise to the diversity of animal life presently on the planet. Along the way, due mostly to environmental factors, many animals have become extinct. However, other species have escaped detection by humans for centuries, only to be rediscovered in some remote area.
Which of these two viewpoints fits the actual physical facts? Obviously, the latter. Evolutionists repeatedly find themselves in the embarrassing position of discovering that the alleged evolutionary ancestors of current life forms, that supposedly went extinct millions of years ago, are in fact still living. They are forced to cover their tracks by inventing a self-contradictory, nonsensical term to identify these anomalies—in this case, “living fossils.” But that’s like a round square. Philosophers and logicians refer to such duplicitous posturing as irrational and “logical contradiction.” Evolutionists call it “science.”
REFERENCE
“Retired Professor Captures a ‘Living Fossil’ on Video” (2006), Research in Review, June 13, [On-line], URL: http://www.rinr.fsu.edu/rockrat/more.html."
Sunday, August 03, 2008
Isn't Archaeology Wonderful?
Historical Evidences for the Accuracy of the Bible.
For those who refuse to believe, no evidence is sufficient. However, for those inclined to believe, evidence helps. And, it would appear that archaeologists have unearthed more evidence for the veracity of the Scriptures.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
A word about constantly-mutating evolutionists, skeptical philosophers, and speculative theologians
From TeamPyro:
"Here's some background on Spurgeon's argument below. In 1890, William Platt Ball published Heredity and Evolution.; Are the Effects of Use and Disuse Inherited? An Examination of the View Held by [Herbert] Spencer and [Charles] Darwin. Ball was himself an evolutionist, but he (along with others in the same vein) departed from Darwin—and even more so from Herbert Spencer—on the question of whether and how our parents' and ancestors' behavior influences the characteristics we inherit from them. Will the offspring of a hardworking man who uses his muscles inherit any benefits from his working out? Or if the tails of Cocker Spaniels are clipped for enough years so that generation after generation of dogs never use their tails, will a breed of naturally tailless Spaniels eventually result through the evolutionary process?
Spencer, for one, seemed to think so. He pointed to giraffes as proof of the "use and disuse" theory, claiming giraffes could never have evolved such long necks unless their tendency to stretch ever higher had some effect toward actually lengthening the necks of their offspring across many generations. Thus Spencer (and evolutionists who followed him) argued, evolution is a hopeful doctrine for the future of humanity. It suggests that humanity will eventually get better if we act better. That was the standard evolutionary doctrine of salvation through the 1870s or so.
The actual progeny of that brand of humanistic optimism, however, was a whole new species of evolutionists, including William Ball. They pointed out a stubborn fact: the laws of genetics mitigate against our inheriting the effects of our parents' behavior through any kind of purely biological process. As an illustration, Ball pointed out that Jewish men have practiced circumcision from time immemorial, and Jewish infants are nevertheless still always born with fully intact foreskins. Ball insisted that evolutionary changes needed to be explainable by some more scientific means than the theory of use and disuse. He wasn't sure how animals evolved fantastic traits, but he insisted the process could not be explained by the use-and-disuse theory; that was simply unscientific.
Those who held the older evolutionary opinions employed human morality as a counter-example. The use-and-disuse theory is the only way to account for human guilt in the evolutionary paradigm, they insisted. They pointed to the immoral proclivities so evident in human behavior as undeniable proof that we have inherited behavioral influences from our animal ancestors. Suddenly some of the same modernists who had long scoffed at the idea of original sin were now acknowledging the ubiquitous manifestations of original sin in order to prop up their now-outmoded evolutionary theories.
That debate was raging when Spurgeon preached this sermon, and it explains the setting in which these comments were made. Spurgeon seems to indicate that he expected the theory of evolution itself to be debunked and replaced by some other fallacy in a very short time. If so, he would be disappointed by the tenacity of that theory today. In the most important respect, however, Spurgeon was exactly right: evolutionists have never found a stable, tenable theory to explain the most fundamental difficulty of their system: how did ordered information get programmed into the genetic code in the first place, and why are there zero observable instances of positive mutations in which additional information is added to a species' genetic code by some "natural" process? In their quest for answers to that question, evolutionists keep changing their story, and the textbooks still have to be completely rewritten every three years or so. Spurgeon observed this trend more than 130 years ago.
And for good measure, he threw in a rebuke aimed at the trendy, emerging, modernist church leaders of his day who aped the style of secular scientists and philosophers by shifting their opinions every three years or so to suit the times. Don't miss that part in the closing paragraph of this excerpt."
The rest can be found here. . ..
"Here's some background on Spurgeon's argument below. In 1890, William Platt Ball published Heredity and Evolution.; Are the Effects of Use and Disuse Inherited? An Examination of the View Held by [Herbert] Spencer and [Charles] Darwin. Ball was himself an evolutionist, but he (along with others in the same vein) departed from Darwin—and even more so from Herbert Spencer—on the question of whether and how our parents' and ancestors' behavior influences the characteristics we inherit from them. Will the offspring of a hardworking man who uses his muscles inherit any benefits from his working out? Or if the tails of Cocker Spaniels are clipped for enough years so that generation after generation of dogs never use their tails, will a breed of naturally tailless Spaniels eventually result through the evolutionary process?
Spencer, for one, seemed to think so. He pointed to giraffes as proof of the "use and disuse" theory, claiming giraffes could never have evolved such long necks unless their tendency to stretch ever higher had some effect toward actually lengthening the necks of their offspring across many generations. Thus Spencer (and evolutionists who followed him) argued, evolution is a hopeful doctrine for the future of humanity. It suggests that humanity will eventually get better if we act better. That was the standard evolutionary doctrine of salvation through the 1870s or so.
The actual progeny of that brand of humanistic optimism, however, was a whole new species of evolutionists, including William Ball. They pointed out a stubborn fact: the laws of genetics mitigate against our inheriting the effects of our parents' behavior through any kind of purely biological process. As an illustration, Ball pointed out that Jewish men have practiced circumcision from time immemorial, and Jewish infants are nevertheless still always born with fully intact foreskins. Ball insisted that evolutionary changes needed to be explainable by some more scientific means than the theory of use and disuse. He wasn't sure how animals evolved fantastic traits, but he insisted the process could not be explained by the use-and-disuse theory; that was simply unscientific.
Those who held the older evolutionary opinions employed human morality as a counter-example. The use-and-disuse theory is the only way to account for human guilt in the evolutionary paradigm, they insisted. They pointed to the immoral proclivities so evident in human behavior as undeniable proof that we have inherited behavioral influences from our animal ancestors. Suddenly some of the same modernists who had long scoffed at the idea of original sin were now acknowledging the ubiquitous manifestations of original sin in order to prop up their now-outmoded evolutionary theories.
That debate was raging when Spurgeon preached this sermon, and it explains the setting in which these comments were made. Spurgeon seems to indicate that he expected the theory of evolution itself to be debunked and replaced by some other fallacy in a very short time. If so, he would be disappointed by the tenacity of that theory today. In the most important respect, however, Spurgeon was exactly right: evolutionists have never found a stable, tenable theory to explain the most fundamental difficulty of their system: how did ordered information get programmed into the genetic code in the first place, and why are there zero observable instances of positive mutations in which additional information is added to a species' genetic code by some "natural" process? In their quest for answers to that question, evolutionists keep changing their story, and the textbooks still have to be completely rewritten every three years or so. Spurgeon observed this trend more than 130 years ago.
And for good measure, he threw in a rebuke aimed at the trendy, emerging, modernist church leaders of his day who aped the style of secular scientists and philosophers by shifting their opinions every three years or so to suit the times. Don't miss that part in the closing paragraph of this excerpt."
The rest can be found here. . ..
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Science & the Bible Part 2
Jan MarKell over at Christian Worldview Network has something worth listening to. Here's part one, which I just found.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
What Triggered Such a Sudden Onslaught of Hard-Core, Mean-Spirited Atheistic Propaganda?
An excerpt from Christian Worldview Network:
"Our 2008 Australian Summit was conducted in
Dawkins teaches at
The evidence clearly shows that many of our institutions of higher leaning are cesspools of atheism and hotbeds of radicalism, including sexual radicalism. It’s as though we’re reliving the pre-French and pre-Bolshevik revolutionary eras.
Prior to the French Revolution, atheism was rampant throughout the nation along with the sexual radicalism of the Marquis de Sade, Mirabeau, Jean-Paul Marat and the Jacobins, Robespierre, etc.
The same was true during the years preceding the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution. Communism was founded on the atheism and socialism of Marx and Lenin with
Now we are being assaulted with what is sometimes labeled “New Atheism.” Paul Kurtz’s Center for Inquiry, for example, is conducting a summer institute for young atheists entitled “The Journey From Religion to Science.” One of their course descriptions reads, “Contemporary issues in secular studies; multisecularism, desecularization and the ‘new atheism.’”
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Does Anyone Really Go To Hell Forever?
**Updated**
There's another great post over at Old Truth, based on an email Jim received. A good discussion is sure to follow!
Caveat: I don't think this is the best example of "productive conversation". Most any time I see someone raise a question like the one posted at Old Truth, it tends to be another person trying to start an online debate, not someone earnestly seeking the truth.
The gentleman's need is not an understanding that hell is real. If he dies unsaved tonight, he'll be convinced hell is real. What needs to be made clear is his state before God. The law needs to be used to unlock the law written in his heart, so that conviction of sin may result and repentance be produced. However, I provide this as a post for the purpose of illustration.
Please pray for the guy. He needs the gospel straight and clear, not an armchair discussion on the reality of eternal punishment.
***Update***
Jim at Old Truth has closed commenting on the thread I've linked to here. As expected, it appears to have garnered nothing but information as to how wasteful it is to try to convince a cultist against his will. However, it also shows how completely outlandish their apologetics can be (and usually are).
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Don't You Just Love Consistency?
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Heads Up!
The New Atheists are Coming
While I don't have a link to the broadcast segment (yet), I did want to post a comment an interview I heard on "PrimeTime America" today on Moody Radio.
They were interviewing Kerby Anderson and were discussing the topic of "The New Atheist". From the discussion, the new atheism is not one that seeks peaceful co-existence with Christians. They are militant. They are sold out to marginalizing anyone who disagrees with atheism.
And for those who are into the "seeker" movement, they aren't interested in building bridges, only blowing them up.
The "new atheist" would argue that Christians are dangerous and should not be allowed in the public square at all. For example, because we believe in the Second Coming, we supposedly would be horrible politicians because we wouldn't plan for the future (of course this is non-sequitor). There were other examples as well but I don't recall them. However, you do get the idea.
They are also warning "lukewarm theists" to "get off the bridge and pick a side" because they are going to "blow the bridge up". There will be no middle ground. To which I respond, "That's ok, Jesus said there was none already". And, there is none.
So does our mission change? No. Not at all. But the tenor will be different. And above all we are called to answer those who have questions for us with respect.
Look for this post to be updated as the segment becomes available.
They were interviewing Kerby Anderson and were discussing the topic of "The New Atheist". From the discussion, the new atheism is not one that seeks peaceful co-existence with Christians. They are militant. They are sold out to marginalizing anyone who disagrees with atheism.
And for those who are into the "seeker" movement, they aren't interested in building bridges, only blowing them up.
The "new atheist" would argue that Christians are dangerous and should not be allowed in the public square at all. For example, because we believe in the Second Coming, we supposedly would be horrible politicians because we wouldn't plan for the future (of course this is non-sequitor). There were other examples as well but I don't recall them. However, you do get the idea.
They are also warning "lukewarm theists" to "get off the bridge and pick a side" because they are going to "blow the bridge up". There will be no middle ground. To which I respond, "That's ok, Jesus said there was none already". And, there is none.
So does our mission change? No. Not at all. But the tenor will be different. And above all we are called to answer those who have questions for us with respect.
Look for this post to be updated as the segment becomes available.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
