I was reading today's Day by Day devotional from Open Doors and really liked these quotes.
Chinese Proverb:
"Instead of cursing the darkness, light a candle."
Horace Bushneel:
"What you call hindrances, obstacles and discouragements are possibly God's opportunities."
Corrie ten Boom- Holland:
God has no problems only plans."
Somebody:
"Your problems become God's plans, the moment you give problems to Him."
I wanted to share my interpretation on the Chinese Proverb. I think that the darkness is sin or the unbelieving and instead of cursing sin or the unbelieving we should be a light to the world! Cursing them is not going to do anyone any good. So next time you here of someone doing something wrong don't curse but bless and pray for them.
In Christ,
Mac
Matthew 5:14-16
"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that the may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.
Monday, August 31, 2009
My Day
I woke up this morning to the lovely sound of my alarm clock! LOL... actually I don't think it sounds that lovely! I got up made pancakes, then talked to one of my best friends (who lives about six hours away) about our up coming trip! After I finished talking with her, I worked on my education. We had lunch. Then we cleaned our den from top to bottom. You name it we did it! After we cleaned the den, I went outside and played with my siblings. We played for about an hour then came in because my mother had to go to the store. Right before I posted this I played a rousing game of Big Fish Lil' Fish with my youngest brother! He won twice and I won once. Humph! =D
In Christ,
Mac
P.S. If you have to get up early I advise you not to wait and read your Bible at nine o'clock and not get to sleep 'till eleven! I have experience!
In Christ,
Mac
P.S. If you have to get up early I advise you not to wait and read your Bible at nine o'clock and not get to sleep 'till eleven! I have experience!
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Li An
We cannot depend on tradition to be saved. For example, "I am from such a denomination" or "I am from such a church." We cannot depend on spiritual heroes; "I am a follower of..." or "I am a co-worker with..."
We are to produce true fruit of repentance. If we do not bear such repentance, nothing else can save us.
A Christian lady in Shanghai summed it up so nicely when she said "before the Communists came with power I was a Lutheran. Now the Communists have closed down all our churches. All I can say now is I am just a Christian."
In the final analysis this will be the only true testimony that will count.
"When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realised that they were unschooled ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus" (Acts 4:13).
"For you know that it was not with perishable things ... that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ. Through him you believe in God ... and so your faith and hope are in God" (1 Peter 1:18-21).
Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, "We have Abraham as our father."
(Luke 3:8)
We are to produce true fruit of repentance. If we do not bear such repentance, nothing else can save us.
A Christian lady in Shanghai summed it up so nicely when she said "before the Communists came with power I was a Lutheran. Now the Communists have closed down all our churches. All I can say now is I am just a Christian."
In the final analysis this will be the only true testimony that will count.
"When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realised that they were unschooled ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus" (Acts 4:13).
"For you know that it was not with perishable things ... that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ. Through him you believe in God ... and so your faith and hope are in God" (1 Peter 1:18-21).
Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, "We have Abraham as our father."
(Luke 3:8)
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Happy Belated Birthday!
August 24 was the 250th Anniversary of William Wilberforce's birthday. He was born in Kingston upon Hull, Yorkshire to Robert and Elizabeth Wilberforce. William Wilberforce was greatly influenced by the preaching of John Newton, the author of "Amazing Grace." On April 15, 1797, he met his future wife Barbara Spooner. They were married a month-and-a-half later on the 30 of May 1797. They had six children who all lived to adulthood.
William was led by God and his friends (one of them was William Pitt who was the Prime Minister of England at that time) to fight the British Parliament for the freedom of slaves. This was no easy task because all of England depended on the backs of slaves for their livelihood . After several attempts, in March of 1807, his Abolition of the Slave Trade Act was passed, 283 votes to 16.
He died on July 29, 1833, fighting for the rights of slaves. He was buried in Westminster Abbey.
His sons Robert and Samuel later wrote a book about him.
~Mac
P.S. In 2007 a movie came out about his life called "Amazing Grace." It is one of my favorites! Here is the Trailer for Amazing Grace. If you are interested in more about William Wilberforce check out books from your local library or Wikipedia has a good resourse.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
STAND UP FOR HIM!
Another cleaning day has arrived...as well as school. We've had unbelievable weather! It's been awesome...it's seems like fall (AND IT'S AUGUST!!). My grandpa is out of town again so I've been taking care of his animals. Since school has started I've switched riding to the evenings when it's cooler. He has been doing awesome lately!! I am currently working towards the county fair later on this fall.
Make sure you read the article on School...a battleground?...I thought it was very interesting and extremely true. We must ALWAYS be able to defend our faith! Everyone needs to stand up for Jesus and help turn the world back to Him!! I also posted another interesting article from answers in genesis...I believe it's the latest one published on our blog...so..CHECK THEM OUT!!
~Kat
Stand up, stand up for Jesus,
ye soldiers of the cross;
lift high his royal banner,
it must not suffer loss.
From victory unto victory
his army shall he lead,
till every foe is vanquished,
and Christ is Lord indeed.
Stand up, stand up for Jesus,
the trumpet call obey;
forth to the mighty conflict,
in this his glorious day.
Ye that are brave now serve him
against unnumbered foes;
let courage rise with danger,
and strength to strength oppose.
Stand up, stand up for Jesus,
stand in his strength alone;
the arm of flesh will fail you,
ye dare not trust your own.
Put on the gospel armor,
each piece put on with prayer;
where duty calls or danger,
be never wanting there.
Stand up, stand up for Jesus,
the strife will not be long;
this day the noise of battle,
the next the victor's song.
To those who vanquish evil
a crown of life shall be;
they with the King of Glory
shall reign eternally.
Make sure you read the article on School...a battleground?...I thought it was very interesting and extremely true. We must ALWAYS be able to defend our faith! Everyone needs to stand up for Jesus and help turn the world back to Him!! I also posted another interesting article from answers in genesis...I believe it's the latest one published on our blog...so..CHECK THEM OUT!!
~Kat
Stand up, stand up for Jesus,
ye soldiers of the cross;
lift high his royal banner,
it must not suffer loss.
From victory unto victory
his army shall he lead,
till every foe is vanquished,
and Christ is Lord indeed.
Stand up, stand up for Jesus,
the trumpet call obey;
forth to the mighty conflict,
in this his glorious day.
Ye that are brave now serve him
against unnumbered foes;
let courage rise with danger,
and strength to strength oppose.
Stand up, stand up for Jesus,
stand in his strength alone;
the arm of flesh will fail you,
ye dare not trust your own.
Put on the gospel armor,
each piece put on with prayer;
where duty calls or danger,
be never wanting there.
Stand up, stand up for Jesus,
the strife will not be long;
this day the noise of battle,
the next the victor's song.
To those who vanquish evil
a crown of life shall be;
they with the King of Glory
shall reign eternally.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Logical Fallacies: The Fallacy of the Question-Begging Epithet
One of the most common fallacies committed by evolutionists on the Internet is the fallacy of the question-begging epithet. This could be considered a specific sub-type of begging the question (the fallacy of merely assuming what one is trying to prove).
With the question-begging epithet, the arguer uses biased (often emotional) language to persuade people rather than using logic. For example, if a reporter said,
“This criminal is charged with violently murdering the innocent victim,”
she would be using a question-begging epithet because she has used biased language to make a case that is not yet logically established. It would have been more objective for her to say,
“This suspect is charged with killing the other person.”
Some great examples of question-begging epithets can be found on some evolution internet sites—particularly forums or blogs. I saw one example where an evolutionist wrote,
“Our department is becoming infested with creationists.”
The word infested is emotionally charged and portrays creationists in a bad light without making any argument for this. Another writer stated,
“To be a creationist, you’d have to ignore tons of scientific evidence.”
This remark is the fallacy of the question-begging epithet because it uses biased language (and not logic) to suggest that scientific evidence supports evolution.
There is a place for emotional language. After all, language has other purposes than to make logical arguments. It can be used to inform, to question, to command, and to evoke. However, when people try to evoke an emotional response to persuade others of a point that is logically questionable, the fallacy of the question-begging epithet is committed.
Yelling or vulgar language during a debate is always an example of this fallacy. Many times people will turn up the vocal volume to compensate for a lack of cogency in their argument. Ironically, many of those who use mocking or vulgar language in forums seem to think that their rhetoric constitutes a good argument. Far from it. Such language is an indication of a serious lack of critical thinking skills.1
Question-begging epithets can be subtle. Consider this phrase: “evolution vs. creationism.” By attaching -ism to the end of creation but not to evolution, the person is subtly suggesting that creation is merely a belief, whereas evolution is not. But he or she has made no argument for this.
“Creationists believe that the universe is young, but the best scientists tell us that it is billions of years old.”
By using the adjective to describe those scientists who believe in an old universe, this argument uses biased language rather than logic to persuade. It is fallacious.
Here is another example:
“The Creation ‘Museum’ isn’t about science at all, but is entirely about a peculiar, quirky, very specific interpretation of the Bible.”
The author provided no support for this opinion; it is simply an emotional reaction. He also attempts to deride the Creation Museum by putting the word museum in quotes. His claim is nothing but a fallacious epithet. When people use sarcastic/sardonic statements in place of logic, they commit the fallacy of the question-begging epithet. For example,
“Yeah Tyrannosauridae were herbovirus [sic] too before The Fall [sic]. With razor sharp teeth to kill the tenacious shrubberies!”
Such statements are designed to stir people’s emotions, thereby distracting them from the realization that no logical case has been made.
Another common example is when someone accuses an opponent of committing a logical fallacy when it is not the case. A false accusation of a logical fallacy is itself a logical fallacy. This might happen, for example, after a creationist has politely and cogently pointed out a number of fallacies in an evolutionist’s reasoning, and then makes a good argument for creation. In an attempt to turn the tables, the evolutionist responds by saying,
“Well, that’s a fallacy!”
But he has made no logical case that the creationist has indeed committed a fallacy, which makes the evolutionist’s claim itself an arbitrary question-begging epithet.
In Ephesians 5:6 we read, “Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.” An evolutionist may be very emotionally committed to his position and may use biased (or mocking) language in an attempt to evoke a similar emotion in others. However, this is logically irrelevant to whether or not his belief is true.
When people use mere rhetoric (“empty words”) without providing a logical reason for their position, we must cordially point out that they have not made a logical argument; they are simply being arbitrary. Conversely, Christians are to take the “high ground” and always give a good reason for the confidence within us (1 Peter 3:15).
With the question-begging epithet, the arguer uses biased (often emotional) language to persuade people rather than using logic. For example, if a reporter said,
“This criminal is charged with violently murdering the innocent victim,”
she would be using a question-begging epithet because she has used biased language to make a case that is not yet logically established. It would have been more objective for her to say,
“This suspect is charged with killing the other person.”
Some great examples of question-begging epithets can be found on some evolution internet sites—particularly forums or blogs. I saw one example where an evolutionist wrote,
“Our department is becoming infested with creationists.”
The word infested is emotionally charged and portrays creationists in a bad light without making any argument for this. Another writer stated,
“To be a creationist, you’d have to ignore tons of scientific evidence.”
This remark is the fallacy of the question-begging epithet because it uses biased language (and not logic) to suggest that scientific evidence supports evolution.
There is a place for emotional language. After all, language has other purposes than to make logical arguments. It can be used to inform, to question, to command, and to evoke. However, when people try to evoke an emotional response to persuade others of a point that is logically questionable, the fallacy of the question-begging epithet is committed.
Yelling or vulgar language during a debate is always an example of this fallacy. Many times people will turn up the vocal volume to compensate for a lack of cogency in their argument. Ironically, many of those who use mocking or vulgar language in forums seem to think that their rhetoric constitutes a good argument. Far from it. Such language is an indication of a serious lack of critical thinking skills.1
Question-begging epithets can be subtle. Consider this phrase: “evolution vs. creationism.” By attaching -ism to the end of creation but not to evolution, the person is subtly suggesting that creation is merely a belief, whereas evolution is not. But he or she has made no argument for this.
“Creationists believe that the universe is young, but the best scientists tell us that it is billions of years old.”
By using the adjective to describe those scientists who believe in an old universe, this argument uses biased language rather than logic to persuade. It is fallacious.
Here is another example:
“The Creation ‘Museum’ isn’t about science at all, but is entirely about a peculiar, quirky, very specific interpretation of the Bible.”
The author provided no support for this opinion; it is simply an emotional reaction. He also attempts to deride the Creation Museum by putting the word museum in quotes. His claim is nothing but a fallacious epithet. When people use sarcastic/sardonic statements in place of logic, they commit the fallacy of the question-begging epithet. For example,
“Yeah Tyrannosauridae were herbovirus [sic] too before The Fall [sic]. With razor sharp teeth to kill the tenacious shrubberies!”
Such statements are designed to stir people’s emotions, thereby distracting them from the realization that no logical case has been made.
Another common example is when someone accuses an opponent of committing a logical fallacy when it is not the case. A false accusation of a logical fallacy is itself a logical fallacy. This might happen, for example, after a creationist has politely and cogently pointed out a number of fallacies in an evolutionist’s reasoning, and then makes a good argument for creation. In an attempt to turn the tables, the evolutionist responds by saying,
“Well, that’s a fallacy!”
But he has made no logical case that the creationist has indeed committed a fallacy, which makes the evolutionist’s claim itself an arbitrary question-begging epithet.
In Ephesians 5:6 we read, “Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.” An evolutionist may be very emotionally committed to his position and may use biased (or mocking) language in an attempt to evoke a similar emotion in others. However, this is logically irrelevant to whether or not his belief is true.
When people use mere rhetoric (“empty words”) without providing a logical reason for their position, we must cordially point out that they have not made a logical argument; they are simply being arbitrary. Conversely, Christians are to take the “high ground” and always give a good reason for the confidence within us (1 Peter 3:15).
SCHOOL..A BATTLEGROUND?
by Roger Patterson, AiG–U.S. and author of the Evolution Exposed series
Every fall millions of children face the fact that they must return to school. This return is accompanied by a variety of emotions. For many Christian students those emotions may include a fear of being belittled by a teacher in the biology classroom during a discussion on evolution. Those with a social studies class might be intimidated by the teacher who insists human civilizations, like the Egyptians who built the pyramids, existed long before the biblical dates allow. How is a student to face these fears?
Scripture offers us an answer through the words of Peter. We often hear part of 1 Peter 3:15 quoted, but the context of the verse offers much for us to consider.
But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you are blessed. “And do not be afraid of their threats, nor be troubled.” But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed. For it is better, if it is the will of God, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. (1 Peter 3:14–17)
If we live out our lives as Christians in an authentic way, we are guaranteed to face persecution from unbelievers. However, when Christ is the center of our lives and we study the Word, knowing that it provides all we need for life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3), we will be ready to offer answers to challenges—and we will do so in a spirit of love.
Christian parents of students in public schools face a tremendous challenge in countering the humanistic indoctrination in the public school system—not only correcting the ideas surrounding evolution, but also the idea that there is no truth and that morality changes by circumstance. These ideas directly contradict God’s revealed truth and must be torn down and replaced with godly wisdom and understanding.
This is primarily the responsibility of parents, but churches can also be involved in the effort. Creating a support structure where students know that they are supported by their elders and can call on one another for support in the classrooms can be a key part in helping students stand up for their beliefs. This may happen through a church’s youth group or a campus group that meets at lunch, but it must be supported by sound, biblical teaching.
AiG offers a wide variety of faith-defending materials from general apologetics to answering specific questions about evolution. Below are some resources that groups, or individuals, can use to focus on different topics in defending the faith in the classroom.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
CAKE!!!
I should have posted this earlier but here is a picture of a cake I made for my brother's birthday! I created it quickly so I could have done better but it still looks pretty cool!!!
Here are some others I have made.
and...
~Kat
Here are some others I have made.
and...
~Kat
Friday, August 21, 2009
Devotional
Today I was reading a Day by Day devotional from Open Doors by Yang Zhang. I wanted to share it because it is true but sometimes we don't have faith and let Him lead us. He knows what is good for us and what isn't.
Yang Zhang
To share the Gospel is the number one priority of the Body of Christ. New believers also have this responsibility. Not just "mature" believers. Every believer should get involved in spreading the Word of God. The more you plant - the more you reap. Without planting there is no harvest.
God wants to see a harvest of souls. He needs laborers to plough, plant and reap. We are these laborers. We are not only His people - we are also His servants. He can send a servant as He pleases.
The servant has no excuse: I am not gifted. I am not qualified. The master knows what he does.
When He appoints - He anoints
When He calls - He enables
When He sends - He goes along
When He asks you to speak - He will give you the words
Just obey and you will see God at work through you.
~Mac
Note: The Day by Day devotional comes in our e-mail. If you are interested in receiving their daily devotional click here.
Yang Zhang
To share the Gospel is the number one priority of the Body of Christ. New believers also have this responsibility. Not just "mature" believers. Every believer should get involved in spreading the Word of God. The more you plant - the more you reap. Without planting there is no harvest.
God wants to see a harvest of souls. He needs laborers to plough, plant and reap. We are these laborers. We are not only His people - we are also His servants. He can send a servant as He pleases.
The servant has no excuse: I am not gifted. I am not qualified. The master knows what he does.
When He appoints - He anoints
When He calls - He enables
When He sends - He goes along
When He asks you to speak - He will give you the words
Just obey and you will see God at work through you.
~Mac
Note: The Day by Day devotional comes in our e-mail. If you are interested in receiving their daily devotional click here.
God Caused Meaning
Humans in particular seek a "reason to exist" and for the most part find it difficult to accept that we are simply here to consume the earth's resources and die. However, God in the beginning created the heavens, the earth, and all living creatures—especially mankind—with special purposes in mind, which He explained in His Word.
Here is the essence of the naturalistic-evolutionary "story."
There is no God (or "god" is in the forces of nature, or in man himself). Nothing "supernatural" exists (except perhaps some "extra-terrestrial" race of super-intellects that have evolved in other parts of the universe. Since no evidence for the Bible's "God" exists, we can be certain that there is no such thing as a "plan for your life." And since there is so, there is no future, no "afterlife." Speculative Hollywood movies notwithstanding, and the many reported "out of the body experiences" to the contrary, no rational naturalist believes in any form of "eternal life." When you're dead, you're dead!
Such hopeless beliefs drive many into lives of debauchery and hedonism, and fill the couches of psychologists and psychiatrists all over the world. Teenage suicide is alarmingly high, and the therapitst themselves continue to manifest one of the highest suicide rates in civilized countries. Scandals abound among the leaders of world business, politics, and churches.
"If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable" (1 Corinthians 15:19).
There is no "good news" in the evolutionary theory.
There is, however, glorious wonder and life-changing power in the "everlasting gospel" (Revelation 14:6).
• power to transform (Romans 12:2)
• power to enrich (2 Corinthians 9:11)
• power to bring satisfying peace to all situations (Hebrews 13:20-21)
• power to change the mortal body into the immortal and everlasting being that will live eternally with the Creator (1 Corinthians 15:53-54).
Conventional wisdom tells us to "grab all the gusto you can; you only go around once in life!" We are told to "just be yourself" and that we should "let the good times roll." These and hundreds more clichés sprinkled throughout our culture misdirect our thinking and undermine real satisfaction, purpose, and meaning in life.
God designed humanity to enjoy the happiness of stability, the happiness of productivity, and the happiness of success (see Psalm 1). Jesus said, "I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly" (John 10:10
The Incredible Hulk Theory of Life in Space by Brian Thomas, M.S.
The ongoing quest to find life in space has failed to yield any supportive evidence that life exists outside the earth. To prop up the idea of distant spontaneous life formation, some scientists are willing to settle for science fiction. One Serbian astrobiologist has taken cues from evolutionary paleontology—and maybe even from comic books.
Milan Ćircović of the Astronomical Observatory in Belgrade argued in a recent issue of Astrobiology Magazine that cosmic disasters might set up just the right conditions for life to evolve from chemicals. He speculated that habitable planets and the “stuff of life” that they supposedly nurture may get periodically reset by catastrophic events “like gamma ray bursts or nearby supernovae.”1 This reasoning is similar to evolutionary concepts of how life could have diversified on earth through mass extinctions.
In contrast to the classic Darwinian model—which predicts that fossils should show gradual change between transitional kinds—many fossils retain the same forms through several rock layers, and wholly different fossil kinds abruptly occur in other layers. This is generally interpreted to mean that evolution sometimes advances in sudden jumps. Somehow, natural disasters that cause massive death are assumed to kick macroevolution into overdrive.
Organisms do undergo rapid variations to fill empty niches formed after catastrophes. But they always remain within their own kinds. A dramatic transition between kinds has never been observed and, since the evolutionary “jump” is presumed to have occurred during an imagined time between the formation of certain rock layers, has left no record—only the conspicuous absence of transitioning life forms is noticeable.
In spite of the lack of evolutionary evidence, Ćircović proposed that cosmic disasters could similarly kick-start the seeds of life: “A gamma ray burst…would affect how quickly life develops or takes hold by causing changes in atmospheric chemistry on the planet.” Perhaps “interstellar electromagnetic radiation and cosmic rays” influence a planet’s biological environment and somehow help evolution along.1
These destructive processes are being invoked as possible agents for generating the right conditions for life to evolve—the same conditions that origin of life researchers have been unable to replicate through almost a century of intelligent, purposeful experiments.2
This gamma ray concept is reminiscent of comic book legend Stan Lee’s The Incredible Hulk, in which the hero, Dr. Bruce Banner, gets a mega dose of the otherwise deadly gamma radiation.3 The result: Banner can transform into the super-strong, super-sized green giant that has graced big and little screens in recent times.
To be clear, Ćircović is not proposing that life itself is improved or could be started by gamma ray bursts, but that the planetary conditions for supporting life could be. But is that really any less fanciful or more scientific? To say that the destructive forces that occur near galactic cores, where planets supposedly form, can foster life-sustaining environments is as much science fiction as Lee’s Hulk.
Supposedly, gamma ray bursts, cosmic rays,4 and supernovae “can be interpreted as resetting astrobiological clocks which tick on each habitable planet in the Milky Way.”1 There is not a shred of scientific evidence that astrobiological clocks exist anywhere in the universe, except in comic book-like hypotheses. For that matter, the only habitable planet yet discovered is earth, just as the biblical creation model predicts.
Milan Ćircović of the Astronomical Observatory in Belgrade argued in a recent issue of Astrobiology Magazine that cosmic disasters might set up just the right conditions for life to evolve from chemicals. He speculated that habitable planets and the “stuff of life” that they supposedly nurture may get periodically reset by catastrophic events “like gamma ray bursts or nearby supernovae.”1 This reasoning is similar to evolutionary concepts of how life could have diversified on earth through mass extinctions.
In contrast to the classic Darwinian model—which predicts that fossils should show gradual change between transitional kinds—many fossils retain the same forms through several rock layers, and wholly different fossil kinds abruptly occur in other layers. This is generally interpreted to mean that evolution sometimes advances in sudden jumps. Somehow, natural disasters that cause massive death are assumed to kick macroevolution into overdrive.
Organisms do undergo rapid variations to fill empty niches formed after catastrophes. But they always remain within their own kinds. A dramatic transition between kinds has never been observed and, since the evolutionary “jump” is presumed to have occurred during an imagined time between the formation of certain rock layers, has left no record—only the conspicuous absence of transitioning life forms is noticeable.
In spite of the lack of evolutionary evidence, Ćircović proposed that cosmic disasters could similarly kick-start the seeds of life: “A gamma ray burst…would affect how quickly life develops or takes hold by causing changes in atmospheric chemistry on the planet.” Perhaps “interstellar electromagnetic radiation and cosmic rays” influence a planet’s biological environment and somehow help evolution along.1
These destructive processes are being invoked as possible agents for generating the right conditions for life to evolve—the same conditions that origin of life researchers have been unable to replicate through almost a century of intelligent, purposeful experiments.2
This gamma ray concept is reminiscent of comic book legend Stan Lee’s The Incredible Hulk, in which the hero, Dr. Bruce Banner, gets a mega dose of the otherwise deadly gamma radiation.3 The result: Banner can transform into the super-strong, super-sized green giant that has graced big and little screens in recent times.
To be clear, Ćircović is not proposing that life itself is improved or could be started by gamma ray bursts, but that the planetary conditions for supporting life could be. But is that really any less fanciful or more scientific? To say that the destructive forces that occur near galactic cores, where planets supposedly form, can foster life-sustaining environments is as much science fiction as Lee’s Hulk.
Supposedly, gamma ray bursts, cosmic rays,4 and supernovae “can be interpreted as resetting astrobiological clocks which tick on each habitable planet in the Milky Way.”1 There is not a shred of scientific evidence that astrobiological clocks exist anywhere in the universe, except in comic book-like hypotheses. For that matter, the only habitable planet yet discovered is earth, just as the biblical creation model predicts.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Convicting Video!
When I watched this video at a conference I was convicted of how much time I am on the computer or watching T.V. I hope you will find this video as fascinating as I did!
~Mac
P.S. Media Talk 101's Link is in "Our Favorite Links" or you can click here.
~Mac
P.S. Media Talk 101's Link is in "Our Favorite Links" or you can click here.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
What a beautiful day God created!!! With the blue skies, a nice breeze and the sun shining down on you, you can't help but smile when you walk out into the great outdoors! Fortunately I was able to spend a peaceful morning riding my horse. Between the weather and family being in town riding has been put on the back burner lately. We cleaned house today and I am now rearranging my room. Check out the videos I posted recently! There will be more posted shortly!
~Kat
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Books!
Here are some awesome books I have greatly enjoyed and been inspired by:
TORTURED FOR CHRIST
After spending years in underground prison cells and solitary confinement, enduring inhumane tortures, Richard and Sabina Wurmbrand emerged with the testimony of today's Christian martyrs.
To learn more about the Wurmbrand's story, sign up for a free copy of Tortured for Christ by completing the form on this page. You can also browse through the text, pictures and videos on this site.(torturedforchrist.com)
GOD'S SMUGGLER
As a boy, Brother Andrew dreamed of being an undercover spy working behind enemy lines. As a man he found himself working undercover for God. His was a mission filled with danger, financed by faith, supported by miracles.
Told it was impossible to minister behind the Iron Curtain, Andrew knew that nothing was too hard for God.
Do not let the guards see...
Crossing "closed" borders, he prayed, "Lord, in my luggage I have Scripture I want to take to your children. When you were on earth, You made blind eyes see. Now, I pray, make seeing eyes blind. Do not let the guards see those things You do not want them to see." And they never did.
For 35 years, Brother Andrew's life story has inspired millions to step out on their own journeys of faith. This young Dutch factory worker's near-incredible adventures testify of God's step-by-step guidance and hour-by hour provision---available to all who follow his call.
BRUCHKO
What happens when a nineteen-year-old boy and heads into the jungles to evangelize a murderous tribe of South American Indians? For Bruce Olson it meant capture and torture, but what he discovered revolutionized the world of missions.
Please read these books!!! The last two can be found at a christian book store. They have brought to my attention the ever increasing need for prayer for missionaries and those who have not yet come to know the Lord.
PLEASE.. BEFORE YOU GO TO BED TONIGHT, PRAY FOR THOSE WHO ARE SERVING OUR LORD THAT THEY WILL HAVE THE STRENGTH TO STAND STRONG FOR GOD AND FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT KNOW THE LORD!!!
TORTURED FOR CHRIST
After spending years in underground prison cells and solitary confinement, enduring inhumane tortures, Richard and Sabina Wurmbrand emerged with the testimony of today's Christian martyrs.
To learn more about the Wurmbrand's story, sign up for a free copy of Tortured for Christ by completing the form on this page. You can also browse through the text, pictures and videos on this site.(torturedforchrist.com)
GOD'S SMUGGLER
As a boy, Brother Andrew dreamed of being an undercover spy working behind enemy lines. As a man he found himself working undercover for God. His was a mission filled with danger, financed by faith, supported by miracles.
Told it was impossible to minister behind the Iron Curtain, Andrew knew that nothing was too hard for God.
Do not let the guards see...
Crossing "closed" borders, he prayed, "Lord, in my luggage I have Scripture I want to take to your children. When you were on earth, You made blind eyes see. Now, I pray, make seeing eyes blind. Do not let the guards see those things You do not want them to see." And they never did.
For 35 years, Brother Andrew's life story has inspired millions to step out on their own journeys of faith. This young Dutch factory worker's near-incredible adventures testify of God's step-by-step guidance and hour-by hour provision---available to all who follow his call.
BRUCHKO
What happens when a nineteen-year-old boy and heads into the jungles to evangelize a murderous tribe of South American Indians? For Bruce Olson it meant capture and torture, but what he discovered revolutionized the world of missions.
Please read these books!!! The last two can be found at a christian book store. They have brought to my attention the ever increasing need for prayer for missionaries and those who have not yet come to know the Lord.
PLEASE.. BEFORE YOU GO TO BED TONIGHT, PRAY FOR THOSE WHO ARE SERVING OUR LORD THAT THEY WILL HAVE THE STRENGTH TO STAND STRONG FOR GOD AND FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT KNOW THE LORD!!!
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Star Watching
We all had an awesome time watching shooting stars the other night! It's so beautiful gazing up at the clear sky and listening to the locusts talking to each other in the trees. It's very peaceful....(until a star is spotted and we all jump up shouting)lol..It never fails when someone yells out "Oh I saw one!" I'm dozing off or looking in the other direction! I did see many though! We had tons of snacks to help keep us wide awake and believe it or not we were all freezing by the time we heading back to the house.
The first night we laid on our front porch instead of on the trailer. As we were settling down my cousin shot up from her spot yelling," OH...WHAT WAS THAT? EVERYONE GET IN THE HOUSE NOW!!!" At that same time my grandma rounded the corner of the house carrying and chair and growling! Everyone realized that it was grandma except for my cousin who was frustrated because we weren't coming!! We finally calmed my cousin down and laughed the whole time we were watching stars!
It's so much fun spending time with family and making memories. I have a video about creation I will be posting very soon!!
~Kat
The first night we laid on our front porch instead of on the trailer. As we were settling down my cousin shot up from her spot yelling," OH...WHAT WAS THAT? EVERYONE GET IN THE HOUSE NOW!!!" At that same time my grandma rounded the corner of the house carrying and chair and growling! Everyone realized that it was grandma except for my cousin who was frustrated because we weren't coming!! We finally calmed my cousin down and laughed the whole time we were watching stars!
It's so much fun spending time with family and making memories. I have a video about creation I will be posting very soon!!
~Kat
Friday, August 14, 2009
Clumsy
The song below is one of our favorites. It has a really good message for those who are struggling.
Clumsy
Chris Rice
You think I’d have it down by now
Been practicin’ for thirty years
I should have walked a thousand miles
So what am I still doin’ here
Reachin’ out for that same old piece of forbidden fruit
I slip and fall and I knock my halo loose
Somebody tell me what’s a boy supposed to do?
I get so clumsy
I get so foolish
I get so stupid
And then I feel so useless
But You’re sayin’ You love me
And You’re still gonna hold me
And that You wanna be near me
‘Cause You’re makin’ me holy
You’re still makin’ me holy, yeah
I’m gonna get it right this time
I’ll be strong and I’ll make You proud
I’ve prayed that prayer a thousand times
But the rooster crows and my tears roll down (again)
Then You remind me You made me from the dust
And I can never, no never, be good enough
And that You’re not gonna let that come between us
I get so clumsy
I get so foolish
I get so stupid
And then I feel so useless
But You’re sayin’ You love me
And You’re still gonna hold me
And that You wanna be near me
‘Cause You’re makin’ me holy
You’re still makin’ me holy, yeah
From where I stand
Your holiness is up so high I can never reach it
My only hope is to fall on Jesus
I get so clumsy
I get so foolish
I get so stupid
And then I feel so useless
But You’re sayin’ You love me
And You’re still gonna hold me
And that You wanna be near me
‘Cause You’re makin’ me holy
You’re still makin’ me holy, yeah
~Kat and Mac
Clumsy
Chris Rice
You think I’d have it down by now
Been practicin’ for thirty years
I should have walked a thousand miles
So what am I still doin’ here
Reachin’ out for that same old piece of forbidden fruit
I slip and fall and I knock my halo loose
Somebody tell me what’s a boy supposed to do?
I get so clumsy
I get so foolish
I get so stupid
And then I feel so useless
But You’re sayin’ You love me
And You’re still gonna hold me
And that You wanna be near me
‘Cause You’re makin’ me holy
You’re still makin’ me holy, yeah
I’m gonna get it right this time
I’ll be strong and I’ll make You proud
I’ve prayed that prayer a thousand times
But the rooster crows and my tears roll down (again)
Then You remind me You made me from the dust
And I can never, no never, be good enough
And that You’re not gonna let that come between us
I get so clumsy
I get so foolish
I get so stupid
And then I feel so useless
But You’re sayin’ You love me
And You’re still gonna hold me
And that You wanna be near me
‘Cause You’re makin’ me holy
You’re still makin’ me holy, yeah
From where I stand
Your holiness is up so high I can never reach it
My only hope is to fall on Jesus
I get so clumsy
I get so foolish
I get so stupid
And then I feel so useless
But You’re sayin’ You love me
And You’re still gonna hold me
And that You wanna be near me
‘Cause You’re makin’ me holy
You’re still makin’ me holy, yeah
~Kat and Mac
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Hello All!!
Wow! Sorry I haven't blogged lately!! It has been unbelievably crazy here at my house! In the past couple weeks we have celebrated three birthdays (one including me..yay!),gone to the circus and I volunteered at a conference last weekend not to mention 4-h activities which were held last week. Family has also been in town for almost all of July and now August! We've had an awesome time! Though it may be a little hectic I love my cousins and cherish the time we all spend together! In July my older cousin and I entertained the younger kids by creating our own VBS! It was awesome! They thouroughly enjoyed it and I think we had just as much fun singing the songs and doing the movements!
My cousin and I were determined to have at least one picture of ourselves that we like so two evenings were spent in our own photoshoot. And believe it or not we succeded in taking more than one that we LOVED!!
We spent two days cleaning out the barn that had become a wreck( no thanks to me)lol...Tonight we will head out around midnight or so to watch shooting stars. We'll all lay out on the flatbed trailer with mosquito net covering us so we don't get eaten alive!!It's so amazing to be right underneath the sky gazing at God's creation. Oh Mac has posted a link for mediatalk101..be sure to check it out!!
~Kat
35 Reasons not to Sin
Recently I was looking at the Rebelution's most recent article from Steve's blog about "35 Reasons not to sin." I thought it was so awesome that I thought I should share it.
35 REASONS NOT TO SIN
-Because a little sin leads to more sin.
-Because my sin invites the discipline of God.
-Because the time spent in sin is forever wasted.
-Because my sin never pleases but always grieves God who loves me.
-Because my sin places a greater burden on my spiritual leaders.
-Because in time my sin always brings heaviness to my heart.
-Because I am doing what I do not have to do.
-Because my sin always makes me less than what I could be.
-Because others, including my family, suffer consequences due to my sin.
-Because my sin saddens the godly.
-Because my sin makes the enemies of God rejoice.
-Because sin deceives me into believing I have gained when in reality I have lost.
-Because sin may keep me from qualifying for spiritual leadership.
-Because the supposed benefits of my sin will never outweigh the consequences of -disobedience.
-Because repenting of my sin is such a painful process, yet I must repent.
-Because sin is a very brief pleasure for an eternal loss.
-Because my sin may influence others to sin.
-Because my sin may keep others from knowing Christ.
-Because sin makes light of the cross, upon which Christ died for the very purpose of taking away my sin.
-Because it is impossible to sin and follow the Spirit at the same time.
-Because God chooses not to respect the prayers of those who cherish their sin.
-Because sin steals my reputation and robs me of my testimony.
-Because others once more earnest than I have been destroyed by just such sins.
-Because the inhabitants of heaven and hell would all testify to the foolishness of this sin.
-Because sin and guilt may harm both mind and body.
-Because sins mixed with service make the things of God tasteless.
-Because suffering for sin has no joy or reward, though suffering for righteousness -has both.
-Because my sin is adultery with the world.
-Because, though forgiven, I will review this very sin at the Judgment Seat where loss and gain of eternal rewards are applied.
-Because I can never really know ahead of time just how severe the discipline for my sin might be.
-Because my sin may be an indication of a lost condition.
-Because to sin is not to love Christ.
-Because my unwillingness to reject this sin now grants it an authority over me greater than I wish to believe.
-Because sin glorifies God only in His judgment of it and His turning of it to good -use, never because it is worth anything on it’s own.
-Because I promised God he would be Lord of my life.
I hope this is challenging for you! I know I want to be more like my Savior ! Do you?
~Mac
We're Back
We are still blogging don't worry! It has been so busy that neither of us has been able to post any. Sorry!
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Searching for the ‘magic bullet’
by Ken Ham
In 1986 a number of leading creationist researchers decided that the evidence of supposedly human and dinosaur footprints, found together at the Paluxy River in Texas, had serious problems. They decided that, pending further research to establish the correct interpretation of the prints, they could no longer be safely used as evidence supporting the fact (based on the biblical account of creation) that man and dinosaur lived at the same time.
Regardless of what the correct interpretation really is, I want to discuss a related phenomenon that is rife throughout the church. I believe it is one of the reasons so many Christians believe in millions of years, and do not accept the days of creation as ordinary-length days. It is also why so many creationists are not able to successfully argue with evolutionists in a convincing way.
In 1993 Answers in Genesis published an article in our refereed journal (now called TJ) about the popular ‘moon dust’ argument supporting a young universe.1 The idea was that the thickness of dust on the moon when the astronauts landed was only enough to account for a few thousand years worth of accumulation, given the amount that was presently pouring into the earth/moon system. But the authors of the article concluded that this argument should no longer be used, because new measurements showed that the influx of meteoric dust was much less than evolutionists had previously thought.
Later, AiG published articles concerning the supposed plesiosaur carcass netted by a Japanese fishing trawler in 1977.2 These reported on research which substantiated that this carcass could not be of a plesiosaur, and was consistent with a basking shark identification. (They included photos of an actual decomposing basking shark.) This was despite our having previously given favourable publicity to the ‘plesiosaur’ interpretation in our literature.
After this ‘plesiosaur’ article, a person approached me at a creation seminar, and, obviously upset, stated, ‘First you take away the Paluxy prints, then the moondust, and now you’ve destroyed the 1977 plesiosaur argument. If you keep going, we won’t have any great evidence left at all to counteract the evolutionists.’
In November 2001, Answers in Genesis published an article on its website entitled, Arguments we think creationists should NOT use, which was added to the Q&A section. This covered a substantial number of widely-used arguments opposing evolution. It was meant to inform Christians why we felt these arguments were either factually incorrect, or were very dubious and unsafe, even counterproductive, to use. Early the following year, a modified form appeared in Creation magazine.3
Again, some people became upset, expressing their dismay through phone calls, emails and the like. Once more, I had people complain to me at conferences. One man said: ‘Evolutionists have so much evidence; if you people at AiG keep destroying some of the greatest evidence we’ve had, there’ll be none left for creationists. You’re helping the evolutionists win!’
Quite apart from the strange implication that we should not inform people of the truth about things that are believed to be in error, I’ve noticed that many people do not really understand the nature of ‘evidence.’ So they think that to oppose evolution or disprove an old earth, one has to come up with totally different or unique ‘evidence.’ I think this is a major reason why a number of Christians are drawn to what I call ‘flaky evidence’ in the hope that this will counteract evolution. For instance, such things as:
a supposed boat-like structure in the Ararat region as evidence of Noah’s Ark;
a ‘human hand print’ (with virtually no documentation or credible research) supposedly from ‘dinosaur age’ rock;
supposed ‘human hand fossils’ from rock dated as millions of years old (but to date no credible substantiation of the claim); and many other dubious and/or unsubstantiated arguments.
Most well-meaning creationists would agree in principle that things that are not carefully documented and researched should not be used. But in practice, many of them are very quick to accept the sorts of evidences mentioned here, without asking too many questions. Why this seeming urge to find a startling, exciting ‘magic bullet’?
I think it is because probably the majority of Christians believe that the ‘evidence’ overwhelmingly supports an old (millions of years) earth.4 For many, it causes them to reject what the Bible makes so plain about history, to the great detriment of the Gospel founded on that history.
But even those who keenly support Genesis still tend to see it as if there is a ‘mountain’ of ‘their’ facts/evidences lined up ‘against our side.’ This is, I believe, why they are less cautious than they might otherwise be, because they are so keen to have ‘our’ facts/evidences to counter ‘theirs.’
That is, both of the above groups suffer from the same basic problem. They really don’t understand that it is not a matter of ‘their evidence vs ours.’ All evidence is actually interpreted, and all scientists actually have the same observations—the same data—available to them in principle.
I have often debated with evolutionists, or Christians who believe in millions of years, on various radio programs. Sometimes the interviewer has made statements like, ‘Well, today we have a creationist who believes he has evidence for creation, and on the other side is an evolutionist who believes he has evidence to support evolution.’
I then stop the interviewer and state, ‘I want to get something straight here, I actually have the same evidence the evolutionist has—the battle is not about the evidence or facts, as they are all the same. We live on the same earth, in the same universe, with the same plants and animals, the same fossils. The facts are all the same.’
Then the evolutionist says, ‘But you’re on about the Bible—this is religion. As an evolutionist I’m involved in real science.’
I then respond, ‘Actually, as a creationist, I have no problem with your science; it’s the same science I understand and trust. The argument is not about science or about facts—ultimately, the argument is about how you interpret the facts—and this depends upon your belief about history. The real difference is that we have different “histories” (accounts about what happened in the past), which we use to interpret the science and facts of the present.’
I then give an example. ‘Let’s consider the science of genetics and natural selection. Evolutionists believe in natural selection—that is real science, as you observe it happening. Well, creationists also believe in natural selection. Evolutionists accept the science of genetics—well, so do creationists.
‘However, here is the difference: Evolutionists believe that, over millions of years, one kind of animal has changed into a totally different kind. However, creationists, based on the Bible’s account of origins, believe that God created separate kinds of animals and plants to reproduce their own kind—therefore one kind will not turn into a totally different kind.
‘Now this can be tested in the present. The scientific observations support the creationist interpretation that the changes we see are not creating new information. The changes are all within the originally created pool of information of that kind; sorting, shuffling or degrading it. The creationist account of history, based on the Bible, provides the correct basis to interpret the evidence of the present—and real science confirms the interpretation.’
My point is that if we Christians really understood that all evidence is actually interpreted on the basis of certain presuppositions, then we wouldn’t be in the least bit intimidated by the evolutionists’ supposed ‘evidence.’ We should instead be looking at the evolutionist’s (or old-earther’s) interpretation of the evidence, and how the same evidence could be interpreted within a biblical framework and be confirmed by testable and repeatable science.
I believe if more creationists did this, they would be less likely to jump at ‘flaky’ evidence that seems startling, but in reality may be being interpreted incorrectly by the creationists themselves in their rush to find the magic-bullet, knock-down, drag-em-out convincing ‘evidence’ against evolution that they think they desperately need.
The same is true of dating methods. All dating methods suffer, in principle, from the same limitations—whether they are those which are used to support a young world or an old world. Even the famous moondust argument, back when it still seemed that this was an excellent one to use (given the information available), needed to involve assumptions—uniformitarian assumptions, just like radiometric dating does. Even before the error in the measurement of moondust influx was pointed out, evolutionists could rightly counter—how do you know that the dust has always been coming in at the same rate? Of course, such creationist arguments have always been justified in that they are merely turning their own uniformitarian assumptions against them. Creationists can rightly challenge radiometric dating on this same sort of basis, too. Once one understands the assumptions/presuppositions behind dating methods, one realizes that the ‘date’ obtained is actually an interpretation—not a fact!
The bottom line is that it’s not a matter of who has the better (or the most) ‘facts on their side.’ We need to understand that there are no such things as brute facts—all facts are interpreted. Thus, the next time evolutionists use what seem to be convincing facts for evolution, try to determine the presuppositions they have used to interpret these facts. Then, beginning with the big picture of history from the Bible, look at the same facts through these biblical glasses and interpret them differently. Then, using the real science of the present that an evolutionist also uses, see if that science, when properly understood, confirms (by being consistent with) the interpretation based on the Bible. You will find over and over again that the Bible is confirmed5 by real science.
But remember that, like Job (42:2–6), we need to understand that compared to God we know next to nothing. So we won’t have all the answers. However, so many answers have come to light now, that a Christian can give a credible defence of the book of Genesis and show it is the correct foundation for thinking about, and interpreting, every aspect of reality.
So let’s not jump in a blind-faith way at the startling evidences we think we need to ‘prove’ creation—trying to counter ‘their facts’ with ‘our facts.’ (Jesus Himself rose from the dead in the most startling possible demonstration of the truth of God’s Word. But still many wouldn’t believe—cf. Luke 16:27–31.) Instead, let’s not be intimidated by apparent ‘evidences’ for evolution, but understand the right way to think about evidence. We can then deal with the same evidence the evolutionists use,6 to show they have the wrong framework of interpretation—and that the facts of the real world really do conform to, and confirm, the Bible.
In 1986 a number of leading creationist researchers decided that the evidence of supposedly human and dinosaur footprints, found together at the Paluxy River in Texas, had serious problems. They decided that, pending further research to establish the correct interpretation of the prints, they could no longer be safely used as evidence supporting the fact (based on the biblical account of creation) that man and dinosaur lived at the same time.
Regardless of what the correct interpretation really is, I want to discuss a related phenomenon that is rife throughout the church. I believe it is one of the reasons so many Christians believe in millions of years, and do not accept the days of creation as ordinary-length days. It is also why so many creationists are not able to successfully argue with evolutionists in a convincing way.
In 1993 Answers in Genesis published an article in our refereed journal (now called TJ) about the popular ‘moon dust’ argument supporting a young universe.1 The idea was that the thickness of dust on the moon when the astronauts landed was only enough to account for a few thousand years worth of accumulation, given the amount that was presently pouring into the earth/moon system. But the authors of the article concluded that this argument should no longer be used, because new measurements showed that the influx of meteoric dust was much less than evolutionists had previously thought.
Later, AiG published articles concerning the supposed plesiosaur carcass netted by a Japanese fishing trawler in 1977.2 These reported on research which substantiated that this carcass could not be of a plesiosaur, and was consistent with a basking shark identification. (They included photos of an actual decomposing basking shark.) This was despite our having previously given favourable publicity to the ‘plesiosaur’ interpretation in our literature.
After this ‘plesiosaur’ article, a person approached me at a creation seminar, and, obviously upset, stated, ‘First you take away the Paluxy prints, then the moondust, and now you’ve destroyed the 1977 plesiosaur argument. If you keep going, we won’t have any great evidence left at all to counteract the evolutionists.’
In November 2001, Answers in Genesis published an article on its website entitled, Arguments we think creationists should NOT use, which was added to the Q&A section. This covered a substantial number of widely-used arguments opposing evolution. It was meant to inform Christians why we felt these arguments were either factually incorrect, or were very dubious and unsafe, even counterproductive, to use. Early the following year, a modified form appeared in Creation magazine.3
Again, some people became upset, expressing their dismay through phone calls, emails and the like. Once more, I had people complain to me at conferences. One man said: ‘Evolutionists have so much evidence; if you people at AiG keep destroying some of the greatest evidence we’ve had, there’ll be none left for creationists. You’re helping the evolutionists win!’
Quite apart from the strange implication that we should not inform people of the truth about things that are believed to be in error, I’ve noticed that many people do not really understand the nature of ‘evidence.’ So they think that to oppose evolution or disprove an old earth, one has to come up with totally different or unique ‘evidence.’ I think this is a major reason why a number of Christians are drawn to what I call ‘flaky evidence’ in the hope that this will counteract evolution. For instance, such things as:
a supposed boat-like structure in the Ararat region as evidence of Noah’s Ark;
a ‘human hand print’ (with virtually no documentation or credible research) supposedly from ‘dinosaur age’ rock;
supposed ‘human hand fossils’ from rock dated as millions of years old (but to date no credible substantiation of the claim); and many other dubious and/or unsubstantiated arguments.
Most well-meaning creationists would agree in principle that things that are not carefully documented and researched should not be used. But in practice, many of them are very quick to accept the sorts of evidences mentioned here, without asking too many questions. Why this seeming urge to find a startling, exciting ‘magic bullet’?
I think it is because probably the majority of Christians believe that the ‘evidence’ overwhelmingly supports an old (millions of years) earth.4 For many, it causes them to reject what the Bible makes so plain about history, to the great detriment of the Gospel founded on that history.
But even those who keenly support Genesis still tend to see it as if there is a ‘mountain’ of ‘their’ facts/evidences lined up ‘against our side.’ This is, I believe, why they are less cautious than they might otherwise be, because they are so keen to have ‘our’ facts/evidences to counter ‘theirs.’
That is, both of the above groups suffer from the same basic problem. They really don’t understand that it is not a matter of ‘their evidence vs ours.’ All evidence is actually interpreted, and all scientists actually have the same observations—the same data—available to them in principle.
I have often debated with evolutionists, or Christians who believe in millions of years, on various radio programs. Sometimes the interviewer has made statements like, ‘Well, today we have a creationist who believes he has evidence for creation, and on the other side is an evolutionist who believes he has evidence to support evolution.’
I then stop the interviewer and state, ‘I want to get something straight here, I actually have the same evidence the evolutionist has—the battle is not about the evidence or facts, as they are all the same. We live on the same earth, in the same universe, with the same plants and animals, the same fossils. The facts are all the same.’
Then the evolutionist says, ‘But you’re on about the Bible—this is religion. As an evolutionist I’m involved in real science.’
I then respond, ‘Actually, as a creationist, I have no problem with your science; it’s the same science I understand and trust. The argument is not about science or about facts—ultimately, the argument is about how you interpret the facts—and this depends upon your belief about history. The real difference is that we have different “histories” (accounts about what happened in the past), which we use to interpret the science and facts of the present.’
I then give an example. ‘Let’s consider the science of genetics and natural selection. Evolutionists believe in natural selection—that is real science, as you observe it happening. Well, creationists also believe in natural selection. Evolutionists accept the science of genetics—well, so do creationists.
‘However, here is the difference: Evolutionists believe that, over millions of years, one kind of animal has changed into a totally different kind. However, creationists, based on the Bible’s account of origins, believe that God created separate kinds of animals and plants to reproduce their own kind—therefore one kind will not turn into a totally different kind.
‘Now this can be tested in the present. The scientific observations support the creationist interpretation that the changes we see are not creating new information. The changes are all within the originally created pool of information of that kind; sorting, shuffling or degrading it. The creationist account of history, based on the Bible, provides the correct basis to interpret the evidence of the present—and real science confirms the interpretation.’
My point is that if we Christians really understood that all evidence is actually interpreted on the basis of certain presuppositions, then we wouldn’t be in the least bit intimidated by the evolutionists’ supposed ‘evidence.’ We should instead be looking at the evolutionist’s (or old-earther’s) interpretation of the evidence, and how the same evidence could be interpreted within a biblical framework and be confirmed by testable and repeatable science.
I believe if more creationists did this, they would be less likely to jump at ‘flaky’ evidence that seems startling, but in reality may be being interpreted incorrectly by the creationists themselves in their rush to find the magic-bullet, knock-down, drag-em-out convincing ‘evidence’ against evolution that they think they desperately need.
The same is true of dating methods. All dating methods suffer, in principle, from the same limitations—whether they are those which are used to support a young world or an old world. Even the famous moondust argument, back when it still seemed that this was an excellent one to use (given the information available), needed to involve assumptions—uniformitarian assumptions, just like radiometric dating does. Even before the error in the measurement of moondust influx was pointed out, evolutionists could rightly counter—how do you know that the dust has always been coming in at the same rate? Of course, such creationist arguments have always been justified in that they are merely turning their own uniformitarian assumptions against them. Creationists can rightly challenge radiometric dating on this same sort of basis, too. Once one understands the assumptions/presuppositions behind dating methods, one realizes that the ‘date’ obtained is actually an interpretation—not a fact!
The bottom line is that it’s not a matter of who has the better (or the most) ‘facts on their side.’ We need to understand that there are no such things as brute facts—all facts are interpreted. Thus, the next time evolutionists use what seem to be convincing facts for evolution, try to determine the presuppositions they have used to interpret these facts. Then, beginning with the big picture of history from the Bible, look at the same facts through these biblical glasses and interpret them differently. Then, using the real science of the present that an evolutionist also uses, see if that science, when properly understood, confirms (by being consistent with) the interpretation based on the Bible. You will find over and over again that the Bible is confirmed5 by real science.
But remember that, like Job (42:2–6), we need to understand that compared to God we know next to nothing. So we won’t have all the answers. However, so many answers have come to light now, that a Christian can give a credible defence of the book of Genesis and show it is the correct foundation for thinking about, and interpreting, every aspect of reality.
So let’s not jump in a blind-faith way at the startling evidences we think we need to ‘prove’ creation—trying to counter ‘their facts’ with ‘our facts.’ (Jesus Himself rose from the dead in the most startling possible demonstration of the truth of God’s Word. But still many wouldn’t believe—cf. Luke 16:27–31.) Instead, let’s not be intimidated by apparent ‘evidences’ for evolution, but understand the right way to think about evidence. We can then deal with the same evidence the evolutionists use,6 to show they have the wrong framework of interpretation—and that the facts of the real world really do conform to, and confirm, the Bible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
