Dawkins & Krauss's Greatest Hits: The "Something" Of "Nothing".

It seems that this is what modern atheism has been reduced to...a rambling potpourri of "NOTHING"-LOL

Blessed!

Read more!

A "Genderless" Society? Common Sense Has Finally Left The Building

Is This The New Form Of Child Abuse?

O' Canada...Meet Baby Storm 

Supposedly no one knows Baby Storm's gender because his/her parents have decided to make it a secret even to him/her and certainly to all the rest of us. The parents, Kathy Witterick, 38, and David Stocker, 39,  sent this email out New Year's Day when Baby Storm was born:

"We decided not to share Storm's sex for now -- a tribute to freedom and choice in place of limitation, a standup to what the world could become in Storm's lifetime."

So Baby Storm is a representative of what the world "could become" in baby Storm's lifetime???  So far Grandparents have had to try to explain why everyone is sworn to secrecy regarding Storm's gender. Storm's brothers have even been told that the gender of their brother/sister is a secret. What do these kids tell other kids about their brother/sister? What toys do you buy? What diapers do you buy? If he is a boy, do you dress him in a dress or skirt or lace clothing?

"To raise a child not as a boy or a girl is creating, in some sense, a freak," ..."It sets them up for not knowing who they are."..."To have a sense of self and personal identity is a critical part of normal healthy development,"..."This blocks that and sets the child up for bullying, scapegoating and marginalization."..."We all have sexual identity,"..."The mission to have masculine and feminine traits more equalized and more flexible and not judgmental is awesome in a utopian community. But we take pride in our sexual identity." ~ Dr. Eugene Beresin, director of training in child and adolescent psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital. 

So ultimately even those in the mental health profession claim that this "experiment" is not a good one. In fact it is down right manipulative.

The basis of this is that view is the "theory" that gender is a learned behavior. That if a person is not taught  gender association and expression, that they will be and become a "sexually free" person uninhibited by bring "trained" to embrace a certain gender and having the ability to express themselves as sexually neutral. In essence, in their perfect world, the person may embrace a gender but it will be without being pressured to do so? As Storm's mother says:

"In fact, in not telling the gender of my precious baby, I am saying to the world, 'Please can you just let Storm discover for him/herself what she (he) wants to be?!."

What if Storm gets older and wants to go to the restroom at a restaurant? Do you mean that Storm can impose his "freedom" to invade the privacy of men or women in their respective bathrooms because he is not an expression of either, or because he/she is gender neutral?

Read more!

I WAS An Atheist

If one were to listen to the atheist rhetoric of authors such as Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, and the propaganda that fills the internet, one would think that all "thinking and rational" individuals are simply evolving into a condition of atheism or non theistic belief. After all most who don't believe in God, claim that non-belief is somehow a default system or normalcy of human existence. Many also believe that people are only trained to be believers by their culture, family or environment. Still others believe that theism or belief in God is only a product of birth, location and circumstance. To confirm this many point to the growth of religions such as Islam claiming that the only reason for its growth is the high birth rate within Islamic nations. Others apply the same rationale to Christianity. The metaphysical naturalist believes however that the more men learn the less religious they will be.

All of these assertions are simply weak postulations to explain away what is obvious; 1- man lives in a world that includes much more than the materialistic components and 2- what we see comes from a source that we do not see. In fact the bible being ages ahead of this type of argument, applies the eternal existence of that which is not seen (God) to the concept of faith as follows:

2 Corinthians 4:18 ~ "While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen [are] temporal; but the things which are not seen [are] eternal."

As I've discussed in 'Does Science Presuppose Atheism' a common thought of unbelievers is that science will somehow eventually answer all questions and that whatever can't be proven by science is somehow illusionary. Well, aside from that fact that science can't prove itself and that many theories of science begin with presumptions that remain unproven, the interpretations of science are said to only solidify natural laws and solidify materialism.

God Is

For many, the assertions I've outlined above were thought to be common. However all of those thoughts, previously said to be rational, have come under serious scrutiny from individuals that the materialists, and especially metaphysical naturalists don't like to talk about much. With the conversion of scientists like Dr. Francis Collins, Dr. Allister McGrath and Dr. Dean Kenyon the scientific community has been set on its ear for quite some time with quite some time more to come.

Read more!

Unnaturally Selected, 150 Years Of Deception

Before We Get Started:

We have had some recent and good discussion regarding science, evolution and evolutionary theory on this blog. This will likely be my last post in the series. The other posts can be located as follows:

The Rottweiler Who Lost His Teeth & His Mind

Is Evolution Science?

Does Science Presuppose Atheism?

Women, Mathematics & Evolution

Until recently even the radicals have been fairly behaved and welcomed. Those whom we've come to know as regulars are yet welcomed, and new individuals willing to respectfully engage are certainly encouraged to provide their insights, but the charlatans that think that ad hominems are basis for debate, or that can't read what is directly addressed, can crawl back into the pit of primordial slime from which they believe they have arrived. Those individuals are certainly not welcomed. But for the rest, atheist and theist alike, who simply love true dialogue and debate, and want to get to the truth of the issues, let us press on.

150 Years Of Deceit

As we run headlong into the 150th anniversary of the Magnum Opus of Charles R. Darwin's "On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection Or The Preservation Of Favored Races In The Struggle For Life (Yes, Favored Races, namely and more specifically them that are WHITE- and they continue to say he wasn't racist-go figure!)

There is a WHY to life and that why is  not in natural processes but in Jesus Christ!  As Christians we are becoming equipped to both understand evolutionary arguments and also put down evolutionary rhetoric and dogmas which have made their rounds, deceiving many into believing that both man and ape share what is called a common ancestor. In fact the Darwinian evolutionary theory of common descent is that all biological beings share this common ancestor, and over time, through process of natural selection, mutation and what is otherwise considered blind process, there have been branches upon branches of species and phyla created to produce this wonderful world of diversity and what we call life.

Read more!

Does Science Presuppose Atheism?

"I toyed with atheism from the age of about nine, originally because I worked out that, of all the hundreds of religions in the world, it was the sheerest accident that I was brought up Christian. They couldn’t all be right, so maybe none of them was. I later reverted to a kind of pantheism when I realised the shattering complexity and beauty of the living world. Then, around the age of 16, I first understood that Darwinism provides an explanation big enough and elegant enough to replace gods. I have been an atheist ever since." [Richard Dawkins You Ask The Questions Independent February 20 2003]

The Problem

As mentioned in the post The Rottweiler Who Lost His Teeth & His Mind, and later questioned in Is Evolution Science? It seems that modern scientific theory comes with an automatic presuppositional bias against theism in general. This bias is constructed on the chassis of methodological naturalism, which primarily deals with how one gains "trustworthy" knowledge or information from the natural or material world in which we live. This is called epistemology.

Usually, along with the proposition of methodological naturalism, comes a stance know as Metaphysical Naturalism, which focuses on what actually exists within the natural world and makes bold statements of what doesn't exist within the natural world. This is called ontology. Both of these constructs usually lend themselves to anti-super-naturalism, which is the belief that there is no outside intervention in the present day world from any source and specifically the source called God. I've discussed that topic and the flaws of that sort of reasoning in depth HERE. The backbone of all of this sort of thinking is atheism (the denial of the existence of God).

Read more!

The Rottweiler Who Lost His Teeth & His Mind

Genesis 2:7 ~ "And the LORD GOD FORMED MAN [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

"This is not an anti-religious book"..."God, to repeat this point, which ought to be obvious, but isn't, never made a tiny wing in his eternal life."

Young Earth creationists are, he writes, "deluded to the point of perversity"..."all but the woefully uninformed are forced to accept the fact of evolution".

Atheist and evolutionary evangelist Dr. Richard Dawkins recently sought to advance evolution and do his part to stamp out creationism with the presentation of what he calls the "facts of evolution" in his new book 'The Greatest Show On Earth'. The author of several books, the most recent being "The God Delusion" in which he claimed that all Christians were deluded for believing in God.

In this book, though leveling insults at Christians, especially those who believe in the Old Testament and the creation narratives, in almost every chapter, Dr. Dawkins has supposedly "evolved" to believe that belief in evolution and belief in God are incompatible relationships. He recently said this to Newsweek.com:

"No, I don't think they're incompatible (belief in God & evolution) if only because there are many intelligent evolutionary scientists who also believe in God—to name only Francis Collins [the geneticist and Christian believer recently chosen to head the National Institutes of Health] as an outstanding example. So it clearly is possible to be both. This book more or less begins by accepting that there is that compatibility. The God Delusion did make a case against that compatibility in my own mind."

Two things are for sure, similar to his predecessor, Charles Darwin, Dr. Dawkins does not deal with 'first life' (how life first began) within any of his theories. In fact he would rather claim that we came from 'aliens' than attribute life on this planet to God. Secondly Dr. Dawkins is frustrated that large numbers of the general populous doubt whether evolution actually does what it claims. The  problem is that more and more scientists  are realizing that the human  genome and the universe and life in general is far too complex to simply have arisen by the process of time, environmental conditions and random chance as the "theory" of evolution holds. 

When combined with the fact that there is no modern archaeological evidence of any transitional form between humans, apes or chimps and their supposed common ancestor, (which Dr. Dawkins says really isn't necessary for evolution to be true-wouldn't ya know it?) the theory of evolution is being quickly reconsidered, repackaged and rethought on almost every front.

The Beginnings

What began 150 years ago in approximately 1859 with naturalist scientist Charles Darwin (2/12/1809- 4/19/1882) quickly became the 'rational man's' way to think of his origins and relive himself of any connection or responsibility to or with God or a creator.  Probably developed with many of the underpinnings of his Grandfather Erasmus Darwin, who was an materialist evolutionist, the theory of evolution, would change the approach to understanding the world that we live in. The backbone of his theory was to repudiate the idea that divine assistance was necessary for any apparent design in the origin of the species or humankind. Please keep this in mind: Darwin’s claim was that all species are modified descendants of a common ancestor. This is called the theory of Common Descent.  Important note: The theory of evolution as set forth by Darwin does not deal with first life (how life came to be) it merely deals with how existing life changes into new species and manifests itself. This is a point often misunderstood by most creationists or those who hold to a biblical worldview of the origin of life. This proves to be the most fatal self-inflicted wound of evolutionary theory as we will see in this writing.

Read more!

Salvation: Is The Message Revealed To Those Who Have Never Heard?

The Argument

The critic levels many accusations at Christianity. One of those accusations is aimed at the effectiveness of the proliferation of the message of salvation. You see Christianity holds that if one is not a Christian, one cannot be made righteous with God and therefore will be worthy of hell. In many circles it is also held that if one does not hear the gospel message one cannot be forgiven for their sins, set free or be righteous. Paul says that the gospel (the message of it) is the power of God unto salvation:

Rom.1:16~ "16-For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek."

He further states that hearing the gospel is the way that faith comes into the mind and heart of the believer:

Rom.10:17~"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

Immediately before this statement however he declares and questions rhetorically the process of how belief arises within the heart of a believer:

Rom. 10:13-15 ~ "13-For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 14-How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15-And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!"

Paul's declaration has given rise to the thoughts that by ONLY the preaching of the Gospel can one be saved and that without IT faith cannot arise within the heart, and where there is no faith, one can not be saved. The writer of Hebrews picked up on this theme:

Heb. 11:6~"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

The part that we are not addressing in this post is the relationship of faith to salvation. We have discussed and will continue to discuss that in Are Works And Faith Inseparable? This post we are discussing the relationship of hearing the gospel and the message of faith to the community of humanity who may never hear or have never heard that message.

The Current Reality:

Interestingly, by best efforts at estimation, only 2.1 billion persons, approximately 1/3 of the worlds population, is Christian. Before we proceed there are problems with that estimate and additional qualifications that must be made. Religious Tolerance.Org states that some of the problems with estimating how many Christians there are worldwide is as follows:

1- The definition of 'Christian' is not agreed upon by many of the groups involved therefore drawing the line between 'Christian' and those who belong to 'sects' is problematic. [Example: Groups such as Mormons and Jehovah's Witness claim to be Christian's although they are in actuality non-Christian cults.][Religious Tolerance.Org didn't say that part, I did.]

2- No-one can really tell if a person is a Christian at heart, or if they are just paying lip-service to the name.

3- "The percentage of Christians in the world peaked at about 30 % in the 1980s, leveled off, is now declining, and will probably approximate to about 25% of the world's population by 2025. As a result of their extremely high rates of population growth, the proportion of Muslims in the world will continue to increase dramatically, amounting to 20 percent of the world's population about the turn of the century, surpassing the number of Christians some years later, and probably accounting for about 30 percent of the world's population by 2025." ~ Samuel Huntington, "The Clash of Civilizations and the remaking of world order," Touchstone Books, (1998)

Christian growth is on the decline and even if it were flat, at the most liberal estimate it still holds that approximately 60% of the worlds population is non-Christian. Those numbers have varied over the years throughout history however, at any given time it could be said that 50% or less of the worlds population were Christian believers.

What Does That Mean?

It means that most of the world is non Christian and according to the most popular definition of salvation will be lost in their sins. The question that arises from this, is what of the eternal disposition of the peoples and individuals who have never heard the gospel? In some cases it could be that certain individuals will never and have never heard the message of the cross and are therefore determined to go to hell.

That concept, as strange as it may sound, is not totally foreign to the church and many believers, especially them that hold belief in Evangelical and Reform Christian Theological circles. In fact this is the assertion of Dr. John Calvin the father of Calvinism regarding this and related issues:

“...(God) does not create everyone in the same condition, but ordains eternal life for some and eternal damnation for others.” (Cited in Alister McGrath, Christian Theology, p. 396)

This is descriptive to what is called the doctrine of Double Predestination (the elect are predestined to be saved while the non-elect are predestined to hell) To be fair many Calvinists do not hold to this ascription as it is stated, however it is a telling backdrop for what many assert regarding the nations and individuals who have never heard the gospel and have never received the message.

Is There Another Understanding?

Thank God, Yes, there is. Without a doubt belief in Jesus is essential for salvation. The word records:

John 14:5-6~"5-Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way? 6-Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

The question is how can and does that belief come to an individual? And can salvation come to an individuals who has never heard the message?

What We Know:

We know that God has spoken to us through Jesus:

Heb. 1:1-2 ~ "1-God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2-Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds"

We also know that that God was in Jesus reconciling the world unto himself and has given the church that same ministry of reconciliation:

2 Cor. 5:19 ~ "To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation"

We also know that Jesus will present to himself a "glorious church":

Ephes. 5:26-27~"26-That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27-That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish."

We also know that the church is ultimately those who believe and hold fast to their profession of faith through their actions. The church may include many in the earthly or physical church but there is a greater and ever growing gap between those in the "glorious church" and those in the natural or physical church that we see currently.

Teleologically & Cosmologically Speaking:

Atheist Richard Dawkins in his book, "The Blind Watchmaker" summarizes the study of Micro-Biological Science as the study of complicated things that APPEAR to be designed by an intelligent designer or creator. In other words what is obviously apparent in creation, even at a microbiological level displays evidence of a designer. Dr. Dawkins then spends the rest of the book trying to show that observations can be deceiving and in this case incorrect, and that all things, even complicated structures, are simply matters of chance and blind occurrences of natural processes. Never mind in the interim that Dr. Dawkins undermines the value of empirical science, as he is a scientist that can interpret information subjectively and based upon his presuppositions and try to explain away the complexity of design (Teleology). Even in that however his summation does not change the observation that there is order and an apparent design within creation.

The Christian accounts for that design by declaring that God is responsible for it based on the declarations made through the written testimony of history (the Bible)and secondarily many empirical scientific observations. Many of these observations are not however limited to the Western world and biological science laboratories. They are made public and known throughout all creation and to all people to some degree or extent. This observation of nature is called the observation of the cosmos (ie:cosmology)

What does this mean? It means that God can speak to people, and reveal his truth, to individuals and nations, through creation. The awe of the universe is testimony to the glory of God declaring his works as the Psalmist says.

Ps. 19:1-6 ~ "1-The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. 2-Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. 3-There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. 4-Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, 5-Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. 6-His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof."

This Psalm gives the declaration that God speaks through what is observable in nature and the human conscience. Through observation individuals can understand that not only do they exist but that God (ie: a creator)exists also. This is not secret but is done for all men to see wherever people can observe and wherever conscience can be exercised. Paul, in the New testament, reverberates this same sentiment and closes the gap even tighter by declaring that people are "without excuse":

Rom. 1:19-20~ "19-Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20-For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"

What About Them That Can't See?

God, yet through the existence of life, speaks so that all whether they can observe physically or not, are able to experience his handywork. Sometimes we feel that the only way God reveals himself is through the senses, however his revelation to man is far greater than the sensory capacity of any individual. This is one way that the blind can come to "see" who Jesus is.

What About Personal Revelation?

One of the most touchy areas in which God reveals himself to individuals is the area of personal revelation.As surprising as it may seem, personal revelation was the method by how Paul and the original Apostles became convinced of the authenticity of Jesus. The case could be made that personal revelation of this sort is only reserved for those who Jesus calls Apostles however it should also be noted that Jesus was also personally revealed to women who were not called or given the title of an Apostle, UND Professor John P. Mier in his work "A Marginal Jew Vol. 3" points out that this is partially due to the fact that there was no equivalent word for a female apostle in the Hebrew or Aramaic language:

Lk. 24:10~"It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles."

Although Paul points to the gospel as the chief vehicle that leads to salvation he himself was not preached to in the traditional sense. He was converted by an experience where Christ was revealed to him on Damascus road:

Acts:9:10-12 ~ "3-And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: 4-And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 5-And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. 6-And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. 7-And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. 8-And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus. 9-And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink"

He recounts his experience later in his epistle to the Galations:

Galations 1:15-20 ~ "15-But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, 16-To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: 17-Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. 18-Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. 19-But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother. 20-Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not. 21-Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia; 22-And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ: 23-But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed. 24-And they glorified God in me"

Prior To The New Testament

We see this revelation of God toward humankind as far back as Genesis

When Enos was born(Gen. 4:26)men began to call upon the name of the Lord, what was revealed to them that facilitated these actions?

Melchizedek was known as a priest of the most high God (Gen. 14:18)and was even contrasted to Jesus himself within the NT (Heb. 7:1) How did Melchizedek come to know who God was?

Naaman, a Syrian, came to the prophet Elisha on the word of his wife's servant seeking God's deliverance for his incurable leprosy. (2 Kings 5)How did Naaman credit God with such power? Was his seeking simply a matter of convenience or desperation?

The syrophonecian woman pleaded with Jesus for her daughter's deliverance (Mk. 7:24-30). How did she know the works of God moved through Jesus life until he had power over devils?

The Assyrian capital Nineveh repented at the preaching of Jonah. How did they recognize and prioritize the warning of God as important?

The argument could be made that all of these individuals heard the message of the Lord and knew of God and his acts before they had their experiences, but that yet does not address the fact that none of these individuals had a special relationship either with to or toward God before these events. In fact most of them were outside the people of "promise" or the chosen of God.

Every Nation That Fears And Works

In Acts 10:35, Peter states that there is an acceptance of God of "every nation that feareth him, and worketh righteousness is accepted with him". (There's that word WORKS again)Back to the point...Traditionally, we have understand this to mean that anyone, without regard, can accept the message of Jesus and be saved. The question is however, was there a greater emphasis on this verse even toward those who may have never heard the message but yet received God into their midst?

One thing is for sure, God has the salvation of the world, even those who have never heard the message of the cross under his control. His mission is still the same today as it was back then...In fact here's what he said:

Lk. 19:10~ "For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost."

Questions:

What of them that have never heard...can they be saved too?

Should a person take the attitude of, "If God wants to speak to me, he knows where I am?"

Did Paul place too great of an emphasis on preaching the word, especially since the message wasn't so much as preached to him at his conversion?

Does experience equal or exceed a more cognitive acceptance of the gospel message?

Is there a second standard of salvation for some? If so is that fair?

These are tough questions, can we give some tough answers?

Blessed!

Read more!

The Morality Campaign Against God Pt. 2

As discussed in The Morality Campaign Against God Pt. 1, there is a seething cauldron of growing hatred against both God and Christians in general. The non-theist desires to place the worlds ills at the feet of God and Christianity saying that God is the author of hate and division in the world therefore calling him, his actions and the actions of Christianity's adherents immoral.

Professor Bart D. Ehrman in his book "God’s Problem: How The Bible Fails To Answer Our Most Important Question-Why We Suffer" while not dealing with the morality of man, concluded that suffering is caused due to evil forces in this present world (apocalypticism). He explains how this continues even though prescribed atonement (sacrifice of Jesus) has been made to eliminate it. He concludes by calling the actions and the nature of God into question and poses that God has failed to answer why we suffer and that humans must do whatever is necessary to eliminate their own suffering. In other words Dr. Ehrman calls God’s morality and goodness in dealing with man into question.

What Does It Mean To Be Moral Or Have Morality?

There are many definitions for morality and what it is to be moral. There are both descriptive and normative definitions of the word. There is the theory of "natural law" as it pertains to morality and then there is relative morality, ethical morality and absolute morality out of which objective moral values as referenced by most Christians spring forth, along with the contention that God is the moral law giver.

Then there is a growing field of study in which even monkey's, apes, and dogs are said to have morality. Yep that's right, the atheist hates God so greatly until he is willing to exalt an animal to the status of man before he admits tha there is a God...What a Farce and a TOTAL shame! Click HERE for the truth about Monkey Morality. Yet this is nothing new for individuals throughout history have done this same sort of thing, valuing animals and the creation greater than God and those created in HIS image and likeness.

Romans 1:21-24 & 28 ~ "21-Because that, when thay knew God, they glorified him not but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish hear was darkened. 22-Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23- And changed the glory of the uncorruptable God into an image made like unto corruptable man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things. 24-Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lust of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves."

As stated previously Dr. William Lane Craig Has laid out the argument as follows:

1- If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

1. 2- Objective moral values DO exist.
2. 
   
   3- Therefore God exists.
   
4. From Dr. William Lane Craig, "Why I Believe God Exists" as found in Geisler & Hoffman, "Why I Am A Christian: Leading Thinkers Explain Why They Believe" (Grand Rapids Baker Books, 1999)p.75.

Through history, religious thinkers such as Aquinas (1227-1274) have held that morality is known to all those whose behavior is subject to moral judgment, whether or not they know of the revelations of Christianity.

While I gave special attention to that argument in my last post even going so far as to state the following:

• "So the Christian world view already acknowledges that one can be good for goodness sake, but that one cannot be saved or acceptable with God no matter how much good one does or performs"
  

However, I would like to further develop that idea and submit that there is a difference between the moral good of a Christian and the moral good of a sinner.

A Christian springs forth the good that they do because the heart is good and has been changed by the power the Lord. Whereas a sinner does good out of a different set of principles or essential necessities. Though the same or similar characteristics may exist in the life of a Christian and sinner, a Christian has been impacted supernaturally by the God that they serve, therefore the good that the Christian does is unto the glory of God and not merely because it was a good act. So the difference is not necessarily in the "What" of moral behavior the difference is in the "Why" of moral behavior.

John 7:37-38~ "37-In the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink. 38-He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."

The Naturalist Solution

Create or try to find some way to genetically account for moral behavior.

The atheist/humanist/naturalist has claimed that God offers no benefit towards morality and moral behaviors. Basically stating that all things being equal, that a sinner can be just as good or moral as any Christian, but as we have noted that argument is a non-starter and a given because we can readily observe sinners doing good things or performing good acts according to natural law. However we cannot find any genetic or natural means whereby a sinner gains those moral values. Why? Because the naturalist only responds in ways that are randomly predetermined by genetic processes and natural selection. Natural selection however is a totally blind process with no regard for outcomes either positive or negative. In other words genetic process does not care or offer a priority of moral good for the individual or society.

To further illustrate the terrible problems associated with this viewpoint, we cannot overlook the comments of one of the leading atheists and proponents of methodological and metaphysical naturalism, who is non other than Oxford Professor and scientist Dr. Richard Dawkins.

When discussing morality in a recent interview with with Justin Brierley on Premier Christian Radio Network Dr. Dawkins said the following about why mankind currently holds that the act of rape is wrong:

• Richard Dawkins: My value judgement itself could come from my evolutionary past.


• Justin: So therefore its just as random as any product of evolution? (Referencing human moral value selection)


• Richard Dawkins: Well, you could say that, but it doesn't in any case, nothing about it makes it more probable that there is anything supernatural.


• Justin: Ok, but ultimately your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we've evolved five fingers rather than six?


• Richard Dawkins: You could say that, yeah."
  

Justin then goes on to say this regarding Dawkin’s statements:

"Dawkins is not saying that "rape is ok" – he believes it is wrong from within his evolutionary perspective. However, he does admit that the belief itself is essentially arbitrary given that we could have evolved different morals – and that there can be no overarching moral fact that rape is wrong, as this would suggest values etc. that eclipse his strict naturalism. Of course, not many atheists actually want to admit that this is a logical outworking of naturalism (though it is very hard to deny) and talk all the time as though they are privy to absolute moral facts."

In the naturalistic worldview the definition of morality is solely based on blind chance and what we evolve into. Professor Dawkins agrees that the idea of rape being wrong is an arbitrary product of evolution. In his worldview we evolved to gravitate from rape being an acceptable moral standard. The problem is that Dr. Dawkins cannot account for any of this as he knows that evolutionary process and natural selection are blind and unable to distinguish between moral good and moral bad.

Hold the Phone!

This means that under the naturalist framework, we all would generally accept rape as being ok if only our genes through evolutionary process told us so? This also means that we all could accept murder pedophilia, incest, mutilation, and even eating our children as potential morally equal genetic outcomes of natural selection. Everything is based on random processes.

Devastating Effects

The effects of this type of thinking is enormous and impacting. To draw out it’s conclusions, the criminal then has no responsibility for his/her actions, because genetics become the reason and the need to fulfill criminal behaviors. Free will becomes and illusion shrouded by genetic processes and functions. What was thought to be "freedom of choice" only becomes predetermined genetic responses to stimuli. Moral good and moral bad are merely process of chance and therefore cannot be adequately penalized or rewarded. There is no special good or reward for faithfulness between spouses and no special bad or punishment for infidelity.

It is out of this understanding of natural morality sometimes called "natural law" that homosexuality flourishes. That abortion thrives. That most manias are merely reduced to diverse behaviors. This is the difference between Christian Objective Moral values and the naturalist, relativist or subjectivist value systems which campaign for morality without God. There is no standard of what is called objective morality or any standard of what should be moral obligation.

Additional Scriptural Insight

Judges 21:25 ~ "In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes."

This scripture is reverberated 3 times within the book of Judges. (Judges 17:6, 18:1, and 21:25) one of the most interesting notes is that this scripture is was inserted at a time when we would not be expected to see any kings in Israel. I’ll explain:

Sampson had been deposed by God from being a Judge in approximately 1050 to 1070 BC. (Judges 16:31) Samuel would later reign as the last Judge/Prophet but a King would not be appointed by god and anointed by Samuel until (1 Sam. 10:1 & 17) l or at least another 13 to 32 years in 1038 BC.

One thing we learn from studying the Kings of Israel is that they were not spiritual restorers or moral leaders of the people. That position was reserved for the Priest and the Prophet whom God would raise up. So 2 questions arise?

1. What king was being referred to?
2. What was the social and moral implications of not having a king?

In my opinion this scripture does not merely reflect a future expectation of Israel, it reflects a current (historical) condition of Israel. The actions of the people were effected because there was no God directed leadership.

So the King being referred to is God himself that had given sign after sign raised up Judge after Judge to help and bless Israel and restore them to fellowship. In essence God was King doing and performing duties of taking care of the nation, but his leadership was not kept before the eyes of the people.

What were the results? Obviously the scripture indicates that the people developed their own brand of morality and their own sense of what was right and wrong by doing "what was right in their own eyes". The story of Micah in Judges 17 is indicative of this problem. Micah wanted a relationship with God but did it his way with a total disregard for the path of the Lord. He hired a pastor (priest) made and ephod and a teraphim and consecrated one of his sons to be priest. (Judges 16:5) His actions would affect a nation as the tribe of Dan would take his items and create a nation that was given to idolatry.

In part this scripture is representative of the morality of man without God or the understanding of God’s moral value system. That man is destined to do what is right in his own eyes and those actions will not be pleasing to God, because they miss the whole point of God’s purpose for relationship with and between man.

A Note On Morality From A Respected Christian Professor

Dr. Craig Bloomberg offered this in response to an atheist website called Debunking Christianity that asked him to address why he was still a Christian. On morality he said the following:

"In fact, if Christians have to wrestle with the problem of evil, so must everyone else. Indeed, we must all wrestle as well with the problem of good. Where do these concepts come from? What makes the most hardened atheist (usually) insist that there is something just plain wrong, perhaps even immoral, with torturing prisoners, abusing children, raping women, and with someone else gratuitously murdering them. The most advanced of apes has never disclosed any awareness of systems of morality, which is why we never arrest and imprison them, even if they kill humans. (We might euthanize them once in awhile, but not as retributive punishment, merely to protect the rest of humanity.) And we certainly don’t condemn multiple-partner animals of being unfaithful to their mates. Mark Twain (no evangelical he!) put it well: "Man is the only animal that blushes, or needs to." Near the end of his life, Darwin admitted he had no satisfying explanation for human moral consciousness and reasoning."

When all is said and done Jesus provides a much better answer to the questions of morality among mankind. Although some have set forth to address the issue saying that morality is based on identity (vis a vis Ayn Rand) identity or self awareness tells us absolutely nothing about morality, objective moral values and what God has done for us through the power of HIS Spirit and sacrifice on the cross of his son Jesus Christ.

Blessed!

Read more!

The Morality Campaign Against God Pt. 1

In the good ole USA religious freedom and tolerance is never more celebrated than when we are confronted with messages against religion and against Christianity in particular. Freedom of religious expression is a good thing even when that expression is against God. However, on the underside of this "freedom" it would seem that almost all messages of some sort of religion are tolerated except the message of Christianity. Christianity has been the target of hate and dissension in the religious and anti-religious world for decades and it would seem that such efforts are only increasing in scope and fervor. Enter atheism and it's bigger brother humanism. (almost a rose by any other name...) At either rate, both terms are descriptive of what I consider to be metaphysically natural religions and world views suited for those who do not wish to believe in a non-materialistic or supernatural God. I have discussed this antisupernaturalism stance on my article Antisupernaturalism, Miracles and Historical Critical Method. In the comments section of that article, you will find a mini-debate with a leading atheist regarding the assertion of the "atheist bus campaign". That assertion is that belief in God can be dismissed based on "probability". Thus the deception and flaw of historical critical method is revealed, as it is not given to true empirical science in the evaluation of religious and supernatural matters.

Both atheism and humanism come with it's complete set of codes, affirmations and a primary objectives...In short, those objectives are simply aimed at discarding all religions and Christianity in particular. The manipulation and reinvention of Christianity is the atheist/humanist greatest goal as exemplified through the efforts of Dan Brown in his NY Times Bestselling book and eventual movie "The Da Vinci Code" In that book, conspiracy and secrecy and not actual history became the birth and impetus of modern Christianity. Others such as the late comedian George Carlin, who was an avowed atheist, feel that they must fight the good fight of naturalism at every opportunity. Then there are academicians who undertake the cause, such as leading scientific microbiologist, and what has been described as a staunch evangelical atheist, and author of the book "The God Delusion", Richard Dawkins. Dr. Dawkins has been said to "preach atheism" with the same fervor that a revivalistic evangelist preaches Christianity. He is also know as the "Rottweiler of Darwinism" for his adherence to the Origin of the species with common descent. It should be noted that Darwinian Evolution is one of the most flawed and unscientific theories ever presented as such in human history. Then there are flat out idiots producing unresearched and fallacious movies hailed as "common sense" such as Bill Maher's "Religulous" where Christianity is especially marked as being out of touch with modern society and unnecessary for personal growth.

Just as the CROSS is a symbol of Christianity, atheism also bears it's own symbol. For the American Atheists, a group formed by American Atheism's missing Queen Madalyn Murray O'Hair in 1963, the symbol is said to be "a contemporary scientific symbol" which "acknowledges that only through the use of scientific analysis and free, open inquiry can humankind reach out for a better life."

In essence the atheist god is a god of science, intellect and what can be empirically experienced through the 5 senses. Therefore, there can be no consideration of additional information that is not quantifiable by material or naturalistic means.

You can even check the Celebrity Atheist List to see if your favorite actor or actress is an atheist, agnostic, or a so-called freethinker. Similar to religions there are degrees or denominations of atheism and Pantheistic Atheists who hold that the universe and all creation should be viewed with a "religious reverence" and should be viewed apart from any religious construct or experience, are every bit if not more dogmatic about their beliefs as the Christians and other religious folk they criticize. I have to admit, I kinda always knew what the creator of "Star Trek" really felt about the future...Too bad for all the "Trekies"

This holiday season the American Humanist Association has launched an aggressive campaign as a part of an ongoing strategy to address the Moral Argument for God's Existence. The Association, offering "Humanist Communities" that operate "much like a congregation" simply asks"Why Believe In God? Be good for goodness sake." One of the popular questions they pose to Christians and other religious folk is "Who said you and your religion had a corner on morality?" Also saying that humans can be "morally good" without religion and or God in particular.


Now, to those who have never thought critical toward their faith, these questions and assertions may pose some significant challenges to your understanding of God, morality and the bible. However, for those who have observed "good people" who never given their lives to Christ and subsequently lost their souls, we are reminded that the real object of Christianity was not to create a morally good person, but to redeem man from his defunct position of total depravity and the unrighteous condition of the heart, by providing salvation through means that man could not provide or attain on his own. The ability to be moral happens to be one of those communicable traits of God given to man at man's creation. It is one of those ways in which man has received the "image" or "likeness" of God.

• Gen. 1:26- 27 ~ "26-And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27-So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
• Gen. 2:7 ~ "7- And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

God is a moral being and communicates that morality to mankind. What is noteworthy here is that morality IS NOT salvation. Scripture acknowledges that a person can do good things but yet not have a heart right with God.

• Luke 18:18-23 ~ "18-And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? 19-And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God. 20-Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother. 21-And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up. 22-Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. 23-And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich."

In Luke's account of the "Rich Young Ruler" we find a person who is living a "morally good" life. This is a testimony which goes unchallenged by Jesus throughout the discourse. Although it is an argument from silence it is interesting to note that Jesus shifted his focus toward the spiritual deficiency of the young man instead of what he claimed was his moral good. His ineptitude was solidified in his confidence and adherence to materialism which was revealed in the form of money. The rich young ruler could not enter into fellowship and relationship with God because he was materialistically focused, self centered and unable to trust a non materially centered future. His problems were not a result of immorality but a result of his sin nature and miscondition of the heart.


In 1 Cor.13:3 ~ "3- And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing."


Apostle Paul acknowledges and reverberates the sentiments and teachings of Jesus when he points out that moral goodness without "love" as to indicate the love of God [which is an attribute of right relationship with God] does not provide that which is necessary to fulfill the non material aspects of one's existence In other words, one can give until they hurt themselves giving or doing good and it is a mere futile effort as it pertains to absolving or rectifying their sin problem. Paul later states that there is "no good thing" within the "flesh" (Rom. 7:18) indicating the human agency that is not in accordance to or subject to the Spirit of God and HIS standards is defunct. The Prophet Isaiah also states that human righteous (IE: common morality) is as a "filthy rags" (Is. 64:6).

So the Christian world view already acknowledges that one can be good for goodness sake, but that one cannot be saved or acceptable with God no matter how much good one does or performs.


Who Holds The Standard For Morality?


As Moses dedicated the altar to the Lord calling it Jehovah-Nissi in Exodus 17:15, as to indicate that the Lord was the rallying place or standard whereby the people of God have their victory, there can be no true morality without a moral standard bearer. In other words the morality of men, which is acknowledged by God, is only a weak representation of the morality and standards of God Himself. The morality of men offers no objective standard other than man's own subjective experience and cultural commemoratives.


With that said, it is interesting to note is that the atheist/humanist even acknowledges this standard, by declaring that there is a "good" to begin with. For one to simply be "good" indicates that one is aware of a certain thing called and acknowledged as "good". If all behaviors were equally as good then the atheist/humanist would be calling for hate as well as calling for love...for violence as well as calling for unrest, for war as well as calling for peace. Since we know that the atheist/humanist is only calling for higher standards of behaviours, we can simply deduce that the atheist/humanist within those statements also makes a sterling acknowledgement that there is an objective good, and that good is not merely a subjective construct. Therefore the humanist argument opens the door wide for a declaration of God as the Moral Law Giver and standard holder of all morality because we readily observe that man's standards of "good" are only based on his subjective understanding of what he calls "morally good" which is a derivative of the objective moral standards of God the Moral Law Giver.


This becomes a dilemma for the anti-God crew from the standpoint that we can all acknowledge that objective moral values exist, and murder, crime, infidelity etc. cannot be called "good". Therefore, morality is NOT based on subjective standards, but based on objective standards. A second dilemma is that neither Dr. Dawkins nor any of his anti-God, scientific friends have been able to locate a "moral gene" within a naturalistic scope of science. Dawkins comes close when he speaks of finding a "Meme", which he admits has NEVER been observed and cannot be located within the human body with current science. (My question is how did he find it to begin with?, ooh, maybe it was a revelation!)


Let's go back to the rich young ruler in Luke again. Notice v.18 when the young man acknowledges Jesus as "Good Master" therefore acknowledging a certain level "good" which according to the culture was a term reserved for God just as Jesus indicated in his response in v.19. But later he is disappointed because his standard, while being previously based on himself and self efforts, was short sided and unacceptable with God.

Summary Of The Moral Argument:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values DO exist.
3. Therefore God exists.

From Dr. William Lane Craig, "Why I Believe God Exists" as found in Geisler & Hoffman, "Why I Am A Christian: Leading Thinkers Explain Why They Believe" (Grand Rapids Baker Books, 1999)p.75.

In Part 2 we'll go deeper into this and demonstrate the results of atheism and humanism's flawed philosophies and its impact on education, criminal justice, homosexuality and societal ills in general.

Blessed!

Read more!

Women, Mathematics & Evolution

Recently on NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams there was a story about how new discoveries have disproved the myth that women were less intelligent mathematicians and less able to perform mathematically than their male counterparts. Evidently for years the comparative ability and intelligence of women have been called into question. This continues even in modern academic circles.

Since the evidence was so overwhelming against the notion that women were less intelligent, the question was asked "where did these thoughts and speculations originally come from?" Quite interestingly enough, none of the professionals interviewed could give an answer or even reference a particular study as to how and when the myth that women were less intelligent than men in math began. Well, of course in my many debates with atheists and in reading many blogs regarding evolutionary and naturalistic thought, it didn't take me long to find the answer that many of these "supposed" professors missed, overlooked and I believe intentionally minimized to further promote their naturalistic agenda.

Surprise, Surprise, Surprise!

Darwinian Evolution, taught in every public school science class as simply the Theory Of Evolution, out of all possible explanations and conduits for all of these horrible presuppositions was the answer that the scientist in the NBC story were afraid to render as the exact birthplace of theories that women were less intelligent and could not preform mathematically on the same scale as men. Now most people when confronted with this information say,

"NO, that couldn't be? Why would educators allow such a biased view of natural order to be taught in our classrooms?"

Individuals who say this haven't been introduced to the reality of naturalism and non-theistic teachings regarding origins of man and current conditions. When I say that there is a CESSPOOL of garbage being passed off as educational material, I'm being generous. It's much worse than I could state here. Look at this for example:

"[Man] attains a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can women—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, history, painting, sculpture, music (inclusive of both composition and performance), history, science, and philosophy, the two lists would not bear comparison. We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages... [that] the average mental power in man must be above that of women." ~ Charles Darwin, "The Descent of Man in Relation to Sex" (New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1896), 564.

A "higher eminence", "average mental power above women"? Now to all the women reading this, this is the basis of what our children are being taught in school today when it comes to evolutionary theory. Also, please keep in mind that these ideals and "theories" were valued by Communist founders Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels.

Engels wrote to Marx, "Darwin, whom I am just now reading, is splendid." ~ Conway Zirkle, "Evolution, Marxian Biology and the Social Scene", Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1959, pp.85-87

Marx wrote back to Engels on December 19, 1860, saying, "This is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view."~ Conway Zirkle, Evolution, "Marxian Biology and the Social Scene", Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1959, pp.85-87

There's more. Darwin spoke the following concerning women's abilities:

"powers of intuition, of rapid perception, and perhaps of imitation are characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a past and lower state of civilisation." ~ Charles Darwin, "The Descent of Man, The Modern Library", New York, p. 873.

One of the leading proponents of naturalism and evolutionary theory was psychologist Gustav LeBon. He stated the following based on his understanding of naturalism:

"[Even in] the most intelligent races [there] are large numbers of women whose brains are closer in size to those of gorillas than to the most developed male brains. This inferiority is so obvious that no one can contest it for a moment; only its degree is worth discussion." ~ Stephen Jay Gould, "The Mismeasure of Man" (New York: Norton, 1981), 104-105.

In the world of Darwinian Evolution SIZE really does matter, but common sense doesn't.

According to Charles Darwin and most modern evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins who continue to hold to evolutionary theory as a viable science, the size of the brain indicates intelligence. A woman's brain being smaller (closer to the size of a Gorilla's brain) makes her less intelligent. In fact Mr. Dawkins himself has said that new atheists in particular must push harder to make their naturalistic agenda heard and respected.

OK. Women still don't believe me, let Mr.LeBon finish his own thoughts regarding this:

"Women represent the most inferior forms of human evolution and...are closer to children and savages than to an adult, civilized man. They excel in fickleness, inconstancy, absence of thought and logic, and incapacity to reason. Without a doubt, there exists some distinguished women, very superior to the average man, but they are as exceptional as the birth of any monstrosity, as for example, of a gorilla with two heads. Consequently, we may neglect them entirely." ~ Stephen Jay Gould, "The Mismeasure of Man" (New York: Norton, 1981), 104-105.

David N. Menton, Ph.D., The Religion of Nature: Social Darwinism, St. Louis MetroVoice, September 1994, Vol. 4, No. 9, said that based on Darwin's tenets and beliefs many anthropologists bought into the "brain size" issue even falsifying the evidence to make it fit their presuppositional thinking and racial and gender biases and discrimination.

Who's the culprit? Darwinian Evolutionary Theory that taught and continues to teach that women were less intelligent, less capable and less important to society than men.

This is big business and there are major implications for professors and individuals willing to step out and expose the many lies of evolution. As preachers and ministers, we have a mandate to "be instant in season, out of season;" (2 Tim. 4:2) This topic usually genders much debate from supporters of evolution and naturalism. Opponents usually use the bible as an emotion tool to suggest that God despises women throughout scripture but the opposite is actually true.

The fight is on against creationism as Professor Dawkins outlines. However creationism when it comes to the place of women is much superior on all fronts than evolutionary theory. Example:

• Women are created from the same "stuff" as men. In other words man was made in the "Image" and "Likeness" of God, therefore women share those same attributes, not the attributes of an animal or Gorilla or Ape as evolutionists love to point out. (Gen. 1:27 ~ "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.")

• In God's system women are called to be leaders, used by God to deliver Israel. (Deborah, Ruth, Esther etc.)

• In the Old Testament, women are very instrumental in the survival of both the family and the nation.

• In the Old Testament, the critic is hard pressed to find ONE instance where God endorses the rape, molestation or abuse of women.

• In the Old Testament women were able to approach and receive from God without a male intermediary, indicating that women had every ability as an equal with men to access God.

• Women are valued and honored throughout the biblical narrative and considered to be smart both spiritually and naturally. (Pr. 12:4, 31:10)

• In the New Testament the blood of Jesus levels the playing field of traditions even within a patriarchal society by calling women and men equal in Christ Jesus. (Gal. 3:28 ~ "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.")

I thought it interesting to see how vehemently and avvid some individuals are in stating that evolution is a valid system. As we can see Darwainian evolution is the worst possible mix of confusion for anyone to adopt and accept. Theistic evolution is an even worse proposition no matter how badly many of us want to find a scientific ground or basis by which to defeat the criticisms of the enemy.

Why not simply just believe God and HIS WORD? After all the criticism it still stands the test.

Nex time I'll discuss the rank racism of Darwainian Evolution. Stay tuned.

Blessed!

Resources:

The Face That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution ~ Hank Hanegraaff

The Case For A Creator ~ Lee Strobel

Handbook Of Biblical Evidences ~ John Ankerberg & John Weldon

Center For Creation Science ~ Walt Brown Ph.D.

Read more!