Tag Archives: Apologetics

Atheists Cannot Explain This!!! –




Continue reading...

Why Atheistic Antagonism?



Why Atheistic Antagonism?

There seems to be a logical fallacy in many atheists’ compulsion to attack Creationist thinking. Here’s why:

By definition, Evolution (via Natural Selection– “Survival of the Fittest”)’s logical conclusion would be that societal morals, our consciences, and the like are the result of the fact that people tend to survive better in groups. This would leave the individual with two choices in worldview– to cooperate with the society’s kindnesses and be a productive, humanistic member of society, or to take advantage of society’s kindness and manipulate the kindness of others to their own advantage.

There are, of course, subcategories of these which could explain an individual’s antagonistic behavior toward Creationism, and more specifically Christians in general– but these are merely biproducts of the individual’s disposition and overall worldview. Just because someone claims to be an atheist doesn’t necessarily mean their worldview revolves around their atheism– but surely it can’t help but be influenced by it.

Ultimately, whether an atheist’s disposition is geared toward a selfish worldview or a humanistic worldview, even if it be for purely pragmatic reasons, the logical thing would be to encourage people to believe in a higher moral authority for their actions– God. For the selfish worldview, people controlled by such morals would be easier to exploit. For the humanist, the morals would better help society in general.

The atheist’s conflicts with the Christian would then center more on political issues– and thus the focus of debate and energy would center on their interpretations of morality rather than on the existence of a Creator in general.

And yet, the “atheist” –by definition– consistently focuses their argument on the existence of God in general, revealing that the issue is not in fact the politics involved, but a desperate need to validate their insecurities of judgement by an infinitely holy God.

Continue reading...

Natural Selection



Debunking Evolution in Seven Minutes or Less

Natural Selection can not account for the jump from single-celled organisms to complex systems.

The circulatory system is made up of millions of cells. If you had blood cells, but not enough vein cells to stretch to the organs, the system is incomplete and worthless. If you had the vein cells, but not the blood cells, the system is incomplete and worthless. How then could a perfectly happy single-celled organism spontaneously mutate sufficient cells to accommodate such demands, let alone natural-select into a multipe-celled organism?

Even if a random mutation theory were considered, there would be no natural selection advantage to popping out a random blood cell, “just because,” when there were no vein cells or organ cells to go along with them. And even if it did– again– there would be no advantage, nor sustainability, if the blood and organ cells didn’t show up simultaneously.

It is when we realize that Life as we know it would be physically impossible without the deliberate hand of a Creator, that we can ask what His purpose was in Creation, and whether we will be held accountable for what we have done while we are here.

The Evolutionists in and of themselves, subscribe to their own theological beliefs as well. Just as a “zero” serves as a place-holder for a quantity of nothing, so is to say that the absence of belief in God is to assign a quantity of nothing to their Creator. But acknowledgement of existence holds no bearing on whether something actually exists or not.

The evolutionists try to negate the principle of irreducible complexity with contradictory examples in nature, in which examples of microevolutionary scale are presented as “proof” on a macroevolutionary scale– that human beings evolved from a single-celled organism. Carried out to its logical conclusions, it is similar to saying problem-solving characteristics found in chimps prove that chimps can design and build rocket ships. If the exception to the example proves a statement is true, it should hold that just because A person played the lottery and won last week CERTAINLY means you will win the million dollars every time you play. The likelihood remains that you or I could buy a ticket every day and still never win the Lottery Jackpot.

The argument is given that the original example of irreducible complexity’s mousetrap’s exception of a simpler mousetrap disproves irreducible complexity. This by no means debunks the necessity for key elements in the human circulatory system, nor the simple fact that a system, by definition, is comprised of key elements working together. Nor does it prove human life evolved from a single-celled organism.

Behind the smoke and mirrors of the talk of cellular level complexities and apples-to-oranges examples of “reducible” complexity, is a desperate grip to a desired presupposition of a belief system.

Rejection of said presupposed belief system (atheism) would result in an end to grants and funding toward the scientific study of Evolution. On an individual level, it would mean the atheist would have to abandon his/her entire worldview and belief system, admit they were wrong (and that all those people they pride themselves on being so intellectually superior to could be right), and see that their seared conscience isn’t the final one they will be answering to. They would have to consider that they would in fact be held accountable for every thought, word, and action…

The bottom line remains that a rational argument can not be made via the process of natural selection, of single-celled organism to mammal with a circulatory system. And when debating/discussing the plausibilty of evolution, this should be the focus of the conversation, not random examples of microevolution. Microevolution– the natural selection (“survival of the fittest”) of already complex organisms can explain the surviving hereditary traits of already developed complex organisms, but not the jump from single-celled to complex.

The blood-cells, without vein cells to transport them, and organs for the veins to go to, would be useless. A random mutation of a vein cell would contribute nothing without a blood cell to go through it. Any one of those things without the other would do nothing to contribute to a progressive natural selection to a more complexly developed organism.

So, the key is to hold to the meat of the argument that natural selection can not explain the jump from single-celled to fully-developed circulatory system via natural selection.

Continue reading...

Why Hell Is Reasonable



Why is Hell Reasonable?

Proverbs 9:10 (ESV) The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight.

“Fear of the Lord” is the beginning of wisdom. It does not read, “Love for your neighbor is the beginning of wisdom.”  Nor, “Judge not, lest ye be judged is the beginning of wisdom.”  It is with this understanding that we can reconcile this verse with those that identify the goal of the gospel, and salvation, as repentance and faith in Christ alone. 

Psalm 119:7-8  7 I shall give thanks to You with uprightness of heart, When I learn Your righteous judgments. 8 I shall keep Your statutes; Do not forsake me utterly! (NASB)

Hitler is generally regarded as an example of someone deserving of Hell. And rightfully so. The torture and murder under his command alone would be considered grounds for eternal punishment by most people. 

There are some who don’t believe in Hell. They would prefer to think that God would just annhilate Hitler instead of an infinite punishment. But sin is an offense against an infinitely holy God  as such, justice requires a punishment/ atonement of infinite value. 

Jesus said that we are judged not only by our actions, but by our thought-life as well (whoever looks at a woman with lust has committed adultery in his heart– hatred is murder at heart).

What’s more– as if one sin as a transgression of infinite value wasn’t enough– sin bubbles out of us.  Mark 7:18-23 (ESV) 18 And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him,  19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)  20 And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him.  21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery,  22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness.  23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”

Although there are some who pluck certain verses out of the totality of Scripture, the Bible makes it very clear that Hell is eternal.  Rev 20:10 (ESV) and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

Note that the beast and the false prophet are identified as still being in the lake of fire despite having been thrown in (before Christ’s thousand year reign) way back in Rev 19:20. 

Mtw 25:46 (ESV) And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” Incineration would be a finite punishment, not eternal, and therefore would not satisfy a debt of transgression against an infinitely holy God. 

Furthermore, Jude identifies licentiousness as an evidence of apostasy (Jude 3,4).  What could be a more logical outcome of licentiousness than stripping the infinitely offensive quality of the transgression down to a finite transgression only worthy of a finite punishment?  The answer is Universalism, but that is a topic for another day. 

So where does that put us, as all having broken God’s Law?  The Bible tells us none of us is righteous (Rom 3:10). Our good deeds are like filthy rags before Him (Isaiah 64:6). Trying to be a good person can’t help us. Gal 2:21 “I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness came through works, then Christ died needlessly (NASB). 

The picture is that each one of us is in a cell, awaiting trial. Jesus paid the fine, and the choice we find before us is if we will accept His payment through repentance and faith in His sacrifice alone, or reject His payment (whether forthright, or by adding our works to His sacrifice– He will not share His glory with another) and stand on our own goodness. Repentance (turning away from our sin) is a necessary evidence of our faith in Him– He promises to give us a new heart so we will begin to hate the things we once loved, and love the things we once hated. 

In a court of Law, a murderer can not stand trial and say, “But Your Honor, I did kill all those people, but I always drive the speed limit, and I didn’t kill anybody TODAY.”  The judge would have to be corrupt to not demand justice in light of compliance with the law on other subjects.  

In conclusion, is Hell reasonable?  Yes, and it is biblical.  And it is necessary for God to be a good Judge. 

Continue reading...