Posts
When unbelievers investigate Jesus Christ and the Truth, they should end up at a decision point: accept or reject. I'm not talking about the point where there is still a lack of information, that's usually the excuse of the agnostic or the ignorant. No, I'm talking about the point where unbelievers realize their need for Jesus, understanding that all that was said in the Bible was in fact true, that Jesus is the Son of God. This becomes an existential and personal fork in the road for unbelievers, whether they have all the information or not. C. S. Lewis, who was an agnostic and became "the most reluctant convert in Great Britain", came to that point and knew that to accept was life and to reject was damnation, and yet hesitated because of his sin nature and used the excuse of lack of information. But he chose Jesus, with the Holy Spirit's prompting, of course, and became one of the greatest Christian writers of his century. The amount of information available now to prove the truths of the Bible is staggering compared to what C. S. Lewis had to work with. A good "quick" look into investigating any of these truths is to read Lee Strobel's entire The Case for... series or even Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict. I say "quick" because the work was already done and summarized and written as fairly as possible (both men were atheists when they started their study), and it's in quotations because those books take a little time to read. At least it's better than researching for ten years.
Some excuses people use when they come to that point of realization:
1) "I don't think I have all the information yet, so I'll hold off on Jesus."
This is usually the sorry excuse of agnostics and maybe some atheists. Most of the time, it's used by evolutionists who, hope against hope, wait for evidence to prove Darwin's theory. This is assuming that the evolutionist realizes there is absolutely no evidence since Darwin's day that proves evolution. Too bad most evolutionists believe there are facts and evidence to support macroevolution. Or that excuse could be used by the agnostic who is seriously seeking, but is deeply programmed by his intellectual laziness that he won't make the decision out of sheer inveteracy, a la C. S. Lewis.
2) "I'm not ready to make a decision because I'm not good enough."
This is the same as "I'm not worthy" or "I don't deserve it." No, kidding, we ALL don't deserve it! And that's why Jesus Christ did all that work for us because we don't deserve it and we can't do anything about it. We deserve only hell and He rectified our situation. Time to decide.
3) "I'm not ready to make a decision because I don't want to give up my lifestyle."
This person doesn't have an excuse. It is merely a pride and selfishness issue. He doesn't realize the power of God's Holy Spirit in changing a person's life and would rather not follow through with the decision. It could be that this person really doesn't have all the information; he could have missed the obvious and important point that there is something better after choosing Jesus. To this person, I can only pray that the Holy Spirit speaks to him and for a brother/sister to step out in faith and explain a few more things to answer any lingering questions. Outside of that, it links to the next excuse...
4) "I don't want to decide now because I may make Jesus/God/Christians look bad."
This excuse is similar to #2, except this time, it's based on something outside the unbeliever. It can be tied in with #3 because his bad habits are so deeply ingrained, he doesn't think he can ever be free of them. To this person, I must say that some Christians make Jesus/God/Christians look bad. Well, at least some unbelievers acknowledge the purity of Jesus when they say "I don't think Jesus would have done that". As with the previous excuse, it only shows he doesn't realize the power of God's Holy Spirit in changing a person's life and would rather not follow through with the decision. Those who use this excuse prevent their own change.
January 29, 2007
January 28, 2007
Under-fire controversy
At the HUB a few weeks ago, I had a talk with Dave, the new volunteer worker. He found out I taught martial arts and we started to talk about the UFC. He asked me, "What do you think about the UFC and how do you reconcile that to your Christian walk?"
"Great question!" I said to him and proceeded to meander my way through this quagmire of a topic. I thought I had a prepared answer, but I was only prepared for the "How do you reconcile martial arts with Christianity?" question, which I've answered dozens of times before. This was a little bit of a twist. How does a Christian reconcile his walk with the Lord to this brutal looking sport?
For those who know me, I'm very much into watching and following MMA tournaments because of my martial arts background. I don't have cable so I do more following-up than watching. The UFC and MMA is as controversial in the Christian world as any popular secular entertainment.
Here are some of the more popular contentions to MMA and my response:
It's a gladiatorial spectacle.
The sad truth in life is that the only way to grab people's attention is through sex and violence. Splash the front page of the newspaper with a bloody story or strip a model of her modesty, and you've got people lined up to dole out their hard-earned dollars. Pay-per-view does a great job of marketing an honorable sport as a gladiatorial blood-fest, when really it is not a blood-fest at all. There are many rules in a highly controlled environment and several contingencies on hand to keep the fighters from severely injuring each other. In the level of violence, MMA is not too different from a boxing match, except this time the fighters have more options. Boxing, in both amateur and professional, has an incredibly high rate of deaths per million fighters, most in training.[1] MMA has had only three deaths since 1981.[2] And it's obvious why that is - in boxing, the target half of the time is the head. Also, boxing gloves, while they provide protection for the hands, actually dish out more damage to the target. So instead of a fist and 4 oz. (weight of a typical MMA glove) hitting you, there's a fist and 16 oz. with a greater surface area hitting you. And because of the rules imposed on the fighters, MMA is definitely not going back to ancient Rome like some fear. MMA of today is actually quite tame compared to the brutal matches of the 19th century and is even more tame compared to other forms of violent entertainment since Rome's decline. The way MMA is marketed as a bloodsport is misleading.
MMA engenders violent and unruly behavior.
Nearly all MMA fighters respect each other or at least each other's skill. Only a few fighters bad-mouth their opponents. Compare this to the accepted fake wrestling shows like WWE and such where bad attitude is the norm. Now THAT engenders violent and unruly behavior. Or certain types of music, movies, and TV shows can influence people to violent behavior, but that is another controversial topic that I won't get into now. MMA is a sport and the players are trained fighters who normally don't commit assault in their daily lives. MMA is actually one of the few sports where its players don't commit assault against any other person outside of the arena. MMA does not engender violent and unruly behavior.
How can you call something a sport when you win by assaulting your opponent?
First of all, many sports are violent. Some may say that football and MMA are different in that football's main avenue to gain points is by scoring touchdowns or kicking field goals, while MMA points are gained by nothing other than brutal striking or submission. Just because the avenues to gain points are different, the simple fact remains - both sports are violent. Football even more so. Points are awarded in touchdowns and field goals but to prevent those things from happening against you, it is necessary in football to violently restrain your opponent. Football's protective gear doesn't always prevent injury, either. Most MMA injuries are minor. Refs know when to stop fights and even then, ringside doctors are used as a second measure to stop fights. Fighters too know when to stop because they know it will affect their careers. They'll live to fight another day. Any permanent injury will only keep them from playing their sport. Sports, as defined by wikipedia and most dictionaries, are activities governed by a set of rules and engaged competitively, where the physical capabilities, mental acuity, or equipment quality of the competitor are the sole or primary determiner of the outcome (winning or losing)." I think MMA fits that definition very well. And the players are sportsmen who, ideally, play fairly and accept the win or the loss.
How can this be edifying?
This is one of those guilt-trip, oh-so holy comments. Most games, from board games to organized sports will have a winner or a loser. The loser is not always edified. Games can be a platform for the winner to encourage the loser to keep playing and learn to win. Pridefulness comes through in many ways, whether in playing a game or merely talking to another person. It is not the game, then, but the players. It is the attitude of the players that make it edifying or not. If we're talking about games that do not necessarily edify, a good example is Monopoly. It is an innocent game, but the way it is played is definitely not edifying. The goal in Monopoly is to take as much as possible from other players, short of stealing it. If the players have good attitudes, then Monopoly is a nice little game to play with family and friends. But, going into the way it is played, Monopoly is a good way to practice materialism, selfishness, and self-glorification. Not very edifying, is it? So how can a person be edified with MMA? Just like with any sport or game, as a spectator, it is entertainment, it is neutral. I don't expect to be edified when I'm watching a golf tournament anymore than I expect to be edified when I watch a chess match. As a Christian MMA player, or any sportsman, the issue isn't primarily edification but in glorification. It is not who wins or loses or even the type of game, but who is glorified. There are a few Christians I know of in MMA who give glory to God whether they win or lose. The same goes with other sports with Christian players - do they give glory to God for whatever endeavor they are in or not? This is true for every Christian, not just those in the spotlight. Then, when God is glorified, that is when Christians are edified. And, not to get too theologically deep here, I'll simply say that if a fellow Christian is weak and may stumble because of MMA, then I will not watch it in front of him or mention it around him.
How do you reconcile the violence of MMA with Paul's statement to live peaceably with all men?
Living peaceably with all men means to live a life without causing strife and unnecessary conflict. MMA is a sport where the fighters respect each other. Most of them come from a martial arts background where part of training is to have a healthy respect for another individual. A person can easily create conflict apart from MMA. I and my brothers and sisters in Christ who watch MMA (mostly my brothers) do our best to live peaceably with all men.
And talking about men, the reason why MMA is the most popular sport among men between 18-34 years old[3] is because this type of sport goes to the heart of a man's nature. Men have a battle to fight, as Jonathan Eldredge states in his book Wild At Heart. Men are wired to fight and to compete, there's no doubt about that. And since men are visual creatures, we don't mind watching fights either. Women won't necessarily understand this. Some do and that's great, but for the most part, this is alien to them. As Dr. Eggerich says, this trait in men isn't wrong, it's just different. I hope that Dave's wife and my wife will at least accept this difference.
Sources:
1. Svinth, Joseph R. (2007). Death under the spotlight: The Manuel Velasquez boxing fatality collection. Journal of Combative Sport. http://ejmas.com/jcs/jcsart_svinth_a_0700.htm
2. Svinth, Joseph R. (2007). Boxing Injury Bibliography. Journal of Combative Sport. http://ejmas.com/jcs/jcsart_svinth_0901.htm
3. Mohapatra, P. (2007, January 22). One-on-one with UFC President Dana White. Baltimore Sun. Retrieved January 28, 2007, from http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/bal-whiteqa122,0,6561424.story?coll=bal-sports-headlines
"Great question!" I said to him and proceeded to meander my way through this quagmire of a topic. I thought I had a prepared answer, but I was only prepared for the "How do you reconcile martial arts with Christianity?" question, which I've answered dozens of times before. This was a little bit of a twist. How does a Christian reconcile his walk with the Lord to this brutal looking sport?
For those who know me, I'm very much into watching and following MMA tournaments because of my martial arts background. I don't have cable so I do more following-up than watching. The UFC and MMA is as controversial in the Christian world as any popular secular entertainment.
Here are some of the more popular contentions to MMA and my response:
It's a gladiatorial spectacle.
The sad truth in life is that the only way to grab people's attention is through sex and violence. Splash the front page of the newspaper with a bloody story or strip a model of her modesty, and you've got people lined up to dole out their hard-earned dollars. Pay-per-view does a great job of marketing an honorable sport as a gladiatorial blood-fest, when really it is not a blood-fest at all. There are many rules in a highly controlled environment and several contingencies on hand to keep the fighters from severely injuring each other. In the level of violence, MMA is not too different from a boxing match, except this time the fighters have more options. Boxing, in both amateur and professional, has an incredibly high rate of deaths per million fighters, most in training.[1] MMA has had only three deaths since 1981.[2] And it's obvious why that is - in boxing, the target half of the time is the head. Also, boxing gloves, while they provide protection for the hands, actually dish out more damage to the target. So instead of a fist and 4 oz. (weight of a typical MMA glove) hitting you, there's a fist and 16 oz. with a greater surface area hitting you. And because of the rules imposed on the fighters, MMA is definitely not going back to ancient Rome like some fear. MMA of today is actually quite tame compared to the brutal matches of the 19th century and is even more tame compared to other forms of violent entertainment since Rome's decline. The way MMA is marketed as a bloodsport is misleading.
MMA engenders violent and unruly behavior.
Nearly all MMA fighters respect each other or at least each other's skill. Only a few fighters bad-mouth their opponents. Compare this to the accepted fake wrestling shows like WWE and such where bad attitude is the norm. Now THAT engenders violent and unruly behavior. Or certain types of music, movies, and TV shows can influence people to violent behavior, but that is another controversial topic that I won't get into now. MMA is a sport and the players are trained fighters who normally don't commit assault in their daily lives. MMA is actually one of the few sports where its players don't commit assault against any other person outside of the arena. MMA does not engender violent and unruly behavior.
How can you call something a sport when you win by assaulting your opponent?
First of all, many sports are violent. Some may say that football and MMA are different in that football's main avenue to gain points is by scoring touchdowns or kicking field goals, while MMA points are gained by nothing other than brutal striking or submission. Just because the avenues to gain points are different, the simple fact remains - both sports are violent. Football even more so. Points are awarded in touchdowns and field goals but to prevent those things from happening against you, it is necessary in football to violently restrain your opponent. Football's protective gear doesn't always prevent injury, either. Most MMA injuries are minor. Refs know when to stop fights and even then, ringside doctors are used as a second measure to stop fights. Fighters too know when to stop because they know it will affect their careers. They'll live to fight another day. Any permanent injury will only keep them from playing their sport. Sports, as defined by wikipedia and most dictionaries, are activities governed by a set of rules and engaged competitively, where the physical capabilities, mental acuity, or equipment quality of the competitor are the sole or primary determiner of the outcome (winning or losing)." I think MMA fits that definition very well. And the players are sportsmen who, ideally, play fairly and accept the win or the loss.
How can this be edifying?
This is one of those guilt-trip, oh-so holy comments. Most games, from board games to organized sports will have a winner or a loser. The loser is not always edified. Games can be a platform for the winner to encourage the loser to keep playing and learn to win. Pridefulness comes through in many ways, whether in playing a game or merely talking to another person. It is not the game, then, but the players. It is the attitude of the players that make it edifying or not. If we're talking about games that do not necessarily edify, a good example is Monopoly. It is an innocent game, but the way it is played is definitely not edifying. The goal in Monopoly is to take as much as possible from other players, short of stealing it. If the players have good attitudes, then Monopoly is a nice little game to play with family and friends. But, going into the way it is played, Monopoly is a good way to practice materialism, selfishness, and self-glorification. Not very edifying, is it? So how can a person be edified with MMA? Just like with any sport or game, as a spectator, it is entertainment, it is neutral. I don't expect to be edified when I'm watching a golf tournament anymore than I expect to be edified when I watch a chess match. As a Christian MMA player, or any sportsman, the issue isn't primarily edification but in glorification. It is not who wins or loses or even the type of game, but who is glorified. There are a few Christians I know of in MMA who give glory to God whether they win or lose. The same goes with other sports with Christian players - do they give glory to God for whatever endeavor they are in or not? This is true for every Christian, not just those in the spotlight. Then, when God is glorified, that is when Christians are edified. And, not to get too theologically deep here, I'll simply say that if a fellow Christian is weak and may stumble because of MMA, then I will not watch it in front of him or mention it around him.
How do you reconcile the violence of MMA with Paul's statement to live peaceably with all men?
Living peaceably with all men means to live a life without causing strife and unnecessary conflict. MMA is a sport where the fighters respect each other. Most of them come from a martial arts background where part of training is to have a healthy respect for another individual. A person can easily create conflict apart from MMA. I and my brothers and sisters in Christ who watch MMA (mostly my brothers) do our best to live peaceably with all men.
And talking about men, the reason why MMA is the most popular sport among men between 18-34 years old[3] is because this type of sport goes to the heart of a man's nature. Men have a battle to fight, as Jonathan Eldredge states in his book Wild At Heart. Men are wired to fight and to compete, there's no doubt about that. And since men are visual creatures, we don't mind watching fights either. Women won't necessarily understand this. Some do and that's great, but for the most part, this is alien to them. As Dr. Eggerich says, this trait in men isn't wrong, it's just different. I hope that Dave's wife and my wife will at least accept this difference.
Sources:
1. Svinth, Joseph R. (2007). Death under the spotlight: The Manuel Velasquez boxing fatality collection. Journal of Combative Sport. http://ejmas.com/jcs/jcsart_svinth_a_0700.htm
2. Svinth, Joseph R. (2007). Boxing Injury Bibliography. Journal of Combative Sport. http://ejmas.com/jcs/jcsart_svinth_0901.htm
3. Mohapatra, P. (2007, January 22). One-on-one with UFC President Dana White. Baltimore Sun. Retrieved January 28, 2007, from http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/bal-whiteqa122,0,6561424.story?coll=bal-sports-headlines
January 27, 2007
IMHO forums stink!
Web forums are the bane of my existence. Political forums were my first foray into this weird and ridiculous virtual world. Yes, politics is weird already and the opinions thrown back and forth might as well be wet cow manure. I've only attempted a few times to get into discussions, especially when Bush was elected the second time. Wasn't worth it. Way too much crap tossed about that the truth was muddled. And Christian/religious debate forums can be just as much a nuisance. Oh my word, I've never seen so many people try their best to outsmart each other, it wasn't even funny. And if they weren't trying to outsmart each other, they were trying to outmature or outwisdom each other!
Forums are like that anyway, people laying out their writing "savvy" to be heard. I admit, I always did my best to sound knowledgeable whenever I was pulled into a commenting tete-a-tete. Thing is, whenever the person I was debating with started to give worthless opinions based on anecdotal evidence just to prove his point, I would stop talking to him. I don't want to deal with simple-minded and unsubstantial arguments. But even with the correct arguments, if I followed through with the conversation to the bitter end, what good would that have done? A man convinced against his will...
Yes, I'm sure there are people who excel at this forum thing - strong, brilliant Christians who do their best to represent Christ well, who have their heads on straight. They do exist; I'm still following the writings of a few of them. There were some great points made on the political forums and I've read incredible discussions on theology in the Christian debate sites where I'm always learning new things.
But what really captures my capra aegagrus are martial arts forums. A few of them in particular.
I trained in Jeet Kune Do Concepts for some time and it helped me to be a more open-minded martial artist. I also came from a traditional karate background so I understand the "my style is superior" mindset as well. Once I understood the martial arts, that it's the scientific analysis and practice of self-defense with the progressive development of an individual, I became even more appreciative of the different martial arts of the world. I even thought I could learn a few things from some martial arts forums and talk to like-minded people. Some martial arts forums are decent. Then there are a few that allow for the most obnoxious people to puff out their chests. Those are intolerable. Three sites are black-listed, and I won't honor them by even mentioning their names. They have some childish punks running their comments off. Yes, they may sound intelligent, but in the end, they don't have the openness and courtesy for me to afford them any respect. In fact, because of their lack of credibility, I have no use for their opinion.
In my martial arts development, I'm at the point where the principles of Guided Chaos/Ki Chuan Do is my source of greatest learning. I don't see any other approach to self-defense teaching and practice that is going the direction I'm going - in GC/KCD I found something like the unified field theory of martial arts. There are others I learn from, like TFT and Fast Defense, but Guided Chaos is my bread and butter. There are those in the self-defense community who bad-mouth GC/KCD. Apparently, they've never practiced it and I don't think they ever took the time to even try to understand it. Then I realized, in the self-defense community, there are those who have the "my style is superior" mindset like in the traditional martial arts community. I've learned to leave those people alone. I've also learned to leave those forums alone. If they choose to be close-minded, then I can't do anything about it. I on the other hand will continue to train and keep my eyes peeled so I can learn different approaches. Doing so will only help to develop me beyond the narrow confines of elitist and isolationist thinking.
Forums are like that anyway, people laying out their writing "savvy" to be heard. I admit, I always did my best to sound knowledgeable whenever I was pulled into a commenting tete-a-tete. Thing is, whenever the person I was debating with started to give worthless opinions based on anecdotal evidence just to prove his point, I would stop talking to him. I don't want to deal with simple-minded and unsubstantial arguments. But even with the correct arguments, if I followed through with the conversation to the bitter end, what good would that have done? A man convinced against his will...
Yes, I'm sure there are people who excel at this forum thing - strong, brilliant Christians who do their best to represent Christ well, who have their heads on straight. They do exist; I'm still following the writings of a few of them. There were some great points made on the political forums and I've read incredible discussions on theology in the Christian debate sites where I'm always learning new things.
But what really captures my capra aegagrus are martial arts forums. A few of them in particular.
I trained in Jeet Kune Do Concepts for some time and it helped me to be a more open-minded martial artist. I also came from a traditional karate background so I understand the "my style is superior" mindset as well. Once I understood the martial arts, that it's the scientific analysis and practice of self-defense with the progressive development of an individual, I became even more appreciative of the different martial arts of the world. I even thought I could learn a few things from some martial arts forums and talk to like-minded people. Some martial arts forums are decent. Then there are a few that allow for the most obnoxious people to puff out their chests. Those are intolerable. Three sites are black-listed, and I won't honor them by even mentioning their names. They have some childish punks running their comments off. Yes, they may sound intelligent, but in the end, they don't have the openness and courtesy for me to afford them any respect. In fact, because of their lack of credibility, I have no use for their opinion.
In my martial arts development, I'm at the point where the principles of Guided Chaos/Ki Chuan Do is my source of greatest learning. I don't see any other approach to self-defense teaching and practice that is going the direction I'm going - in GC/KCD I found something like the unified field theory of martial arts. There are others I learn from, like TFT and Fast Defense, but Guided Chaos is my bread and butter. There are those in the self-defense community who bad-mouth GC/KCD. Apparently, they've never practiced it and I don't think they ever took the time to even try to understand it. Then I realized, in the self-defense community, there are those who have the "my style is superior" mindset like in the traditional martial arts community. I've learned to leave those people alone. I've also learned to leave those forums alone. If they choose to be close-minded, then I can't do anything about it. I on the other hand will continue to train and keep my eyes peeled so I can learn different approaches. Doing so will only help to develop me beyond the narrow confines of elitist and isolationist thinking.
January 25, 2007
The main difference between Creation and Evolution
We had our capstone lesson on Creationism by having each person answer questions posed to them using this list of facts. I wanted it to be more like I was playing the evolutionist and they had to respond, but it ended up being more like an open book verbal test.
Creationism
In defense.
"Einstein said, "God does not play dice." He was right. God plays scrabble." - Philip Gold
In the debate between Creation and Evolution, it all boils down to two avenues:
Creation relies on an intelligent agent as its foundation.
This implies that everything came from an infinite source, that intelligence produces fine-tuning, and that information comes from an informer.
Evolution relies on random chance processes.
This implies that everything came from nothing, that randomness produces fine-tuning, and that chaos produces organized information.
One fact point of each area to show evidence of Intelligence, from largest to smallest and from past to the future:
The Galaxy - Our solar system is just at the right spot in the galaxy to have habitable life, between two major "arms" of stars and far enough away from the center with a great abundance of stars, not suitable for life. Any other place would cause tremendous shifts in radiation, gravity, rotation, etc. No other place in the galaxy is habitable because of these factors. We are perfectly placed to be able to see the galaxy and discover quite a lot of it from the safety of Earth.
The Solar System - The sun is a rare star and is just at the right distance. Most stars are red dwarfs. The gas planets are perfectly positioned for protection and all the planets have safely positioned orbits. The biggest clock in existence is the precise balance between the sun, moon, and Earth.
The Earth - Gravity on Earth is just right because if it is too strong, poisonous gases would be pulled closer to the ground, and if it is too weak, most of the oxygen would be released into space. This planet is perfectly designed so that we can discover it. There is just the right amount of all necessary components for life.
The Environment - The distance and tilt of the Earth gives just the right moderate temperature range and it is not as drastic. The amount of water keeps everything balanced. The flow of the molten lava, the ocean currents, and the air currents helps to create an environment well suited for life.
The Human Body - So complex and reasonable in its structure, it is more finely-tuned than the machines we create. Everything, all the different systems, are coordinated with accurate precision.
The DNA - Evolutionists cannot account for its origin and its massive complexity on such a microscopic level. Francis Crick, who didn't believe in God, ironically paved the way for the beginning of scientific thought acknowledging Intelligent Design. If the molecules of DNA were left to combine by themselves, it would turn into a crystalline structure and not life. All the information stored in the DNA betrays an intelligence.
The Molecule - If random, not one molecule would have combined with others to form the way they did. It would take a lot of intelligence to bring atoms together to create simple structures like amino acids that do not even form by itself outside of a biological system. The Miller-Urey experiment, which tried to create life in a test-tube that would've resembled life on an evolution based early Earth, did not demonstrate life coming from random processes. It only showed that life could not have come together without an intelligence intervening in the process (the lab technician who put it together).
The Atom - Unbelievable amount of power in each atom. There is no way the structure of the atom could have been put together randomly. Its very existence owes itself to a power much greater than the power that holds it together.
The Past - Everything in existence came from something! This "something" has an infinite amount of power and intelligence, is outside of our understanding and outside of time, is personal because of the volitional decision to create in the first place.
Evolutionists say that Creationists merely attribute the things they do not know to God, as in, "Since we don't know how the universe came to be, God must have done it." This thinking is called "God of the gaps". But evolutionists have it wrong! We DO know that God created everything and that as we keep discovering more and more scientific evidence, it will only further prove that this universe could only have been MADE. Evolutionists are the ones who have the "evolution of the gaps" thinking, as in, "We haven't found all the evidence, but we know that evolution did it", which is nothing more than circular reasoning. They believe that evolution did it, even without the evidence. That is called "faith" to some people, a wishful thinking, a belief similar to believing in the tooth fairy, which is not Biblical faith. Darwin believed that his case can be disproven if there are no transitional forms. Since the 1850s, when Darwin came out with the Origin of the Species, there hasn't been ANY evidence of transitional forms!
Creationism
In defense.
"Einstein said, "God does not play dice." He was right. God plays scrabble." - Philip Gold
In the debate between Creation and Evolution, it all boils down to two avenues:
Creation relies on an intelligent agent as its foundation.
This implies that everything came from an infinite source, that intelligence produces fine-tuning, and that information comes from an informer.
Evolution relies on random chance processes.
This implies that everything came from nothing, that randomness produces fine-tuning, and that chaos produces organized information.
One fact point of each area to show evidence of Intelligence, from largest to smallest and from past to the future:
The Galaxy - Our solar system is just at the right spot in the galaxy to have habitable life, between two major "arms" of stars and far enough away from the center with a great abundance of stars, not suitable for life. Any other place would cause tremendous shifts in radiation, gravity, rotation, etc. No other place in the galaxy is habitable because of these factors. We are perfectly placed to be able to see the galaxy and discover quite a lot of it from the safety of Earth.
The Solar System - The sun is a rare star and is just at the right distance. Most stars are red dwarfs. The gas planets are perfectly positioned for protection and all the planets have safely positioned orbits. The biggest clock in existence is the precise balance between the sun, moon, and Earth.
The Earth - Gravity on Earth is just right because if it is too strong, poisonous gases would be pulled closer to the ground, and if it is too weak, most of the oxygen would be released into space. This planet is perfectly designed so that we can discover it. There is just the right amount of all necessary components for life.
The Environment - The distance and tilt of the Earth gives just the right moderate temperature range and it is not as drastic. The amount of water keeps everything balanced. The flow of the molten lava, the ocean currents, and the air currents helps to create an environment well suited for life.
The Human Body - So complex and reasonable in its structure, it is more finely-tuned than the machines we create. Everything, all the different systems, are coordinated with accurate precision.
The DNA - Evolutionists cannot account for its origin and its massive complexity on such a microscopic level. Francis Crick, who didn't believe in God, ironically paved the way for the beginning of scientific thought acknowledging Intelligent Design. If the molecules of DNA were left to combine by themselves, it would turn into a crystalline structure and not life. All the information stored in the DNA betrays an intelligence.
The Molecule - If random, not one molecule would have combined with others to form the way they did. It would take a lot of intelligence to bring atoms together to create simple structures like amino acids that do not even form by itself outside of a biological system. The Miller-Urey experiment, which tried to create life in a test-tube that would've resembled life on an evolution based early Earth, did not demonstrate life coming from random processes. It only showed that life could not have come together without an intelligence intervening in the process (the lab technician who put it together).
The Atom - Unbelievable amount of power in each atom. There is no way the structure of the atom could have been put together randomly. Its very existence owes itself to a power much greater than the power that holds it together.
The Past - Everything in existence came from something! This "something" has an infinite amount of power and intelligence, is outside of our understanding and outside of time, is personal because of the volitional decision to create in the first place.
Evolutionists say that Creationists merely attribute the things they do not know to God, as in, "Since we don't know how the universe came to be, God must have done it." This thinking is called "God of the gaps". But evolutionists have it wrong! We DO know that God created everything and that as we keep discovering more and more scientific evidence, it will only further prove that this universe could only have been MADE. Evolutionists are the ones who have the "evolution of the gaps" thinking, as in, "We haven't found all the evidence, but we know that evolution did it", which is nothing more than circular reasoning. They believe that evolution did it, even without the evidence. That is called "faith" to some people, a wishful thinking, a belief similar to believing in the tooth fairy, which is not Biblical faith. Darwin believed that his case can be disproven if there are no transitional forms. Since the 1850s, when Darwin came out with the Origin of the Species, there hasn't been ANY evidence of transitional forms!
January 17, 2007
Rethinking Jimmy
What in the world? First, I thought Jimmy Carter was simply a Christian who didn't know how to do his job well, if he is a Christian at all. I spoke with some people, mature Christians who lived through his presidency, and they said Carter lied to them back then to gain their vote. I also read articles saying that he is a Christian and not a liar, but just didn't do what he was supposed to, that he was too weak. Now I'm more sure that he's just a nominal Christian and that he didn't think about the consequences of his decisions, mainly because of lack of knowledge.
January 11, 2007
What we've learned so far
In youth group, we discussed some of the notes I wrote down from the DVDs we watched these last few months. These were not all the notes I took and I didn't even get to finish, there is just so much information.
From the DVD, A Creation Seminar, we learned that...
Many beliefs are accepted, but there is an undercurrent of bias against Jesus Christ and Christianity.
The Four Great Questions:
1) Who am I? 2) Where did I come from? 3) Why am I here? 4) Where am I going when I die?
The answers are directly related to a person's worldview.
The idea that non-life becomes life is merely belief - anyone can believe that, but it's not true.
Where do we get right or wrong if evolution is true?
Humanist - you are your own god, you have no one to be accountable to.
Creationist - God is the Master Creator and you have only Him to be accountable to.
Satan is the master liar, and he will do his best to lie and let people believe they are their own god.
The devil knows that if Genesis crumbles, Christianity crumbles.
You can take a lie and repeat it for 20 years and it can be accepted as true.
Advertisements shape our buying habits. Evolution is marketed as fact when it is not and yet many people bought it.
Evolution is found in things from kids books to science journals to movies and all touted as true science.
Evolutionists mainly believe their "facts" but these do not fit the evidence.
Evolutionists have a belief system, not a science.
Creation vs. evolution is not religion vs. science but religion/science vs. religion/science.
Science is observable, testable, demonstratable.
God could not use evolution because the mechanism for evolution is based on unintelligent, random chance.
Creation and evolution go in opposite directions. Creation says we were in a perfect state and when sin entered, everything fell apart and continues to do so. Evolution says we were simple organisms and information kept being added on by random chance until we've reached our point and maybe even become as gods.
1st Law of Thermodynamics - energy is neither created nor destroyed (evolution says "nothing" produced "something")
2nd Law of Thermodynamics - entropy, anything in the state of high order will break down (evolution adds information)
Evolution is not just bad science it is NOT science, but a belief system ornamented with scientific jargon.
From the DVD, Unlocking the Mysteries of Life, we learned that...
Many scientists today doubt the validity of Darwin's theory.
Dr. Michael Behe coined the term irreducible complexity, which means that everything in life, no matter how small has an arrangement of different parts that need to work together to function. If one of those parts is missing, it does not function.
A mousetrap is a good example, you need all the parts to catch a mouse.
Simple-celled organisms, like bacteria, are more complex than previously imagined.
The tiny flagellum, which is the bacterium's "paddle", is not too different from an outboard motor. It has a rod with a driveshaft, several cylinders, and a propeller, all ion-driven. It is a biological machine, not just a glob of protein.
Co-option is the evolutionists way to try to get around it, but it is not possible to have any specific part develop on its own.
Simple cells are made up of proteins and these molecular structures confuse evolutionary scientists because they need to be arranged in a very specific way.
From the DVD, A Creation Seminar, we learned that...
Many beliefs are accepted, but there is an undercurrent of bias against Jesus Christ and Christianity.
The Four Great Questions:
1) Who am I? 2) Where did I come from? 3) Why am I here? 4) Where am I going when I die?
The answers are directly related to a person's worldview.
The idea that non-life becomes life is merely belief - anyone can believe that, but it's not true.
Where do we get right or wrong if evolution is true?
Humanist - you are your own god, you have no one to be accountable to.
Creationist - God is the Master Creator and you have only Him to be accountable to.
Satan is the master liar, and he will do his best to lie and let people believe they are their own god.
The devil knows that if Genesis crumbles, Christianity crumbles.
You can take a lie and repeat it for 20 years and it can be accepted as true.
Advertisements shape our buying habits. Evolution is marketed as fact when it is not and yet many people bought it.
Evolution is found in things from kids books to science journals to movies and all touted as true science.
Evolutionists mainly believe their "facts" but these do not fit the evidence.
Evolutionists have a belief system, not a science.
Creation vs. evolution is not religion vs. science but religion/science vs. religion/science.
Science is observable, testable, demonstratable.
God could not use evolution because the mechanism for evolution is based on unintelligent, random chance.
Creation and evolution go in opposite directions. Creation says we were in a perfect state and when sin entered, everything fell apart and continues to do so. Evolution says we were simple organisms and information kept being added on by random chance until we've reached our point and maybe even become as gods.
1st Law of Thermodynamics - energy is neither created nor destroyed (evolution says "nothing" produced "something")
2nd Law of Thermodynamics - entropy, anything in the state of high order will break down (evolution adds information)
Evolution is not just bad science it is NOT science, but a belief system ornamented with scientific jargon.
From the DVD, Unlocking the Mysteries of Life, we learned that...
Many scientists today doubt the validity of Darwin's theory.
Dr. Michael Behe coined the term irreducible complexity, which means that everything in life, no matter how small has an arrangement of different parts that need to work together to function. If one of those parts is missing, it does not function.
A mousetrap is a good example, you need all the parts to catch a mouse.
Simple-celled organisms, like bacteria, are more complex than previously imagined.
The tiny flagellum, which is the bacterium's "paddle", is not too different from an outboard motor. It has a rod with a driveshaft, several cylinders, and a propeller, all ion-driven. It is a biological machine, not just a glob of protein.
Co-option is the evolutionists way to try to get around it, but it is not possible to have any specific part develop on its own.
Simple cells are made up of proteins and these molecular structures confuse evolutionary scientists because they need to be arranged in a very specific way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)