University trained brains : non- thinkers and conformers .

‘The idea that in a free society absolutely everything should be open to debate has a detrimental effect on marginalised groups.’

……. a  university trained brain …….

an important reason for  calling  persons  boneheaded  or  dunciehead  on this blog  is a  deliberate  push back –  possibly  over done –  against political  correctness (PC).

Political  correctness  is  a  skilful and  crafty  way  of  hiding  truth  and  /  or  lying.  It must  be  rejected   and  never  allowed  to  take  root  in Jamaica.

I  hasten to add  that  I do not  support  rudeness and  use  and  restrict  it  to  this  blog for strategic  reasons  related  to  political  correctness.. 

xxxxx  E N D S  xxxxx

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9376232/free-speech-is-so-last-century-todays-students-want-the-right-to-be-comfortable/

Free speech is so last century. Today’s students want the ‘right to be comfortable’
Student unions’ ‘no platform’ policy is expanding to cover pretty much anyone whose views don’t fit prevailing groupthink

ste0

Have you met the Stepford students? They’re everywhere. On campuses across the land. Sitting stony-eyed in lecture halls or surreptitiously policing beer-fuelled banter in the uni bar. They look like students, dress like students, smell like students. But their student brains have been replaced by brains bereft of critical faculties and programmed to conform. To the untrained eye, they seem like your average book-devouring, ideas-discussing, H&M-adorned youth, but anyone who’s spent more than five minutes in their company will know that these students are far more interested in shutting debate down than opening it up.

I was attacked by a swarm of Stepford students this week. On Tuesday, I was supposed to take part in a debate about abortion at Christ Church, Oxford. I was invited by the Oxford Students for Life to put the pro-choice argument against the journalist Timothy Stanley, who is pro-life. But apparently it is forbidden for men to talk about abortion. A mob of furious feministic Oxford students, all robotically uttering the same stuff about feeling offended, set up a Facebook page littered with expletives and demands for the debate to be called off. They said it was outrageous that two human beings ‘who do not have uteruses’ should get to hold forth on abortion — identity politics at its most basely biological — and claimed the debate would threaten the ‘mental safety’ of Oxford students. Three hundred promised to turn up to the debate with ‘instruments’ — heaven knows what — that would allow them to disrupt proceedings.

Incredibly, Christ Church capitulated, the college’s censors living up to the modern meaning of their name by announcing that they would refuse to host the debate on the basis that it now raised ‘security and welfare issues’. So at one of the highest seats of learning on Earth, the democratic principle of free and open debate, of allowing differing opinions to slog it out in full view of discerning citizens, has been violated, and students have been rebranded as fragile creatures, overgrown children who need to be guarded against any idea that might prick their souls or challenge their prejudices. One of the censorious students actually boasted about her role in shutting down the debate, wearing her intolerance like a badge of honour in an Independent article in which she argued that, ‘The idea that in a free society absolutely everything should be open to debate has a detrimental effect on marginalised groups.’

This isn’t the first time I’ve encountered the Stepford students. Last month, at Britain’s other famously prestigious university, Cambridge, I was circled by Stepfords after taking part in a debate on faith schools. It wasn’t my defence of parents’ rights to send their children to religious schools they wanted to harangue me for — much as they loathed that liberal position — it was my suggestion, made in this magazine and elsewhere, that ‘lad culture’ doesn’t turn men into rapists. Their mechanical minds seemed incapable of computing that someone would say such a thing.

Their eyes glazed with moral certainty, they explained to me at length that culture warps minds and shapes behaviour and that is why it is right for students to strive to keep such wicked, misogynistic stuff as the Sun newspaper and sexist pop music off campus. ‘We have the right to feel comfortable,’ they all said, like a mantra. One — a bloke — said that the compulsory sexual consent classes recently introduced for freshers at Cambridge, to teach what is and what isn’t rape, were a great idea because they might weed out ‘pre-rapists’: men who haven’t raped anyone but might. The others nodded. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. Pre-rapists! Had any of them read Philip K. Dick’s dystopian novella about a wicked world that hunts down and punishes pre-criminals, I asked? None had.

When I told them that at the fag-end of the last millennium I had spent my student days arguing against the very ideas they were now spouting — against the claim that gangsta rap turned black men into murderers or that Tarantino flicks made teens go wild and criminal — not so much as a flicker of reflection crossed their faces. ‘Back then, the people who were making those censorious, misanthropic arguments about culture determining behaviour weren’t youngsters like you,’ I said. ‘They were older, more conservative people, with blue rinses.’ A moment’s silence. Then one of the Stepfords piped up. ‘Maybe those people were right,’ he said. My mind filled with a vision of Mary Whitehouse cackling to herself in some corner of the cosmos.

If your go-to image of a student is someone who’s free-spirited and open-minded, who loves having a pop at orthodoxies, then you urgently need to update your mind’s picture bank. Students are now pretty much the opposite of that. It’s hard to think of any other section of society that has undergone as epic a transformation as students have. From freewheelin’ to ban-happy, from askers of awkward questions to suppressors of offensive speech, in the space of a generation. My showdown with the debate-banning Stepfords at Oxford and the pre-crime promoters at Cambridge echoed other recent run-ins I’ve had with the intolerant students of the 21st century. I’ve been jeered at by students at the University of Cork for criticising gay marriage; cornered and branded a ‘denier’ by students at University College London for suggesting industrial development in Africa should take precedence over combating climate change; lambasted by students at Cambridge (again) for saying it’s bad to boycott Israeli goods. In each case, it wasn’t the fact the students disagreed with me that I found alarming — disagreement is great! — it was that they were so plainly shocked that I could have uttered such things, that I had failed to conform to what they assume to be right, that I had sought to contaminate their campuses and their fragile grey matter with offensive ideas.

Where once students might have allowed their eyes and ears to be bombarded by everything from risqué political propaganda to raunchy rock, now they insulate themselves from anything that might dent their self-esteem and, crime of crimes, make them feel ‘uncomfortable’. Student groups insist that online articles should have ‘trigger warnings’ in case their subject matter might cause offence.

The ‘no platform’ policy of various student unions is forever being expanded to keep off campus pretty much anyone whose views don’t chime perfectly with the prevailing groupthink. Where once it was only far-right rabble-rousers who were no-platformed, now everyone from Zionists to feminists who hold the wrong opinions on transgender issues to ‘rape deniers’ (anyone who questions the idea that modern Britain is in the grip of a ‘rape culture’) has found themselves shunned from the uni-sphere. My Oxford experience suggests pro-life societies could be next. In September the students’ union at Dundee banned the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children from the freshers’ fair on the basis that its campaign material is ‘highly offensive’.

Barely a week goes by without reports of something ‘offensive’ being banned by students. Robin Thicke’s rude pop ditty ‘Blurred Lines’ has been banned in more than 20 universities. Student officials at Balliol College, Oxford, justified their ban as a means of ‘prioritising the wellbeing of our students’. Apparently a three-minute pop song can harm students’ health. More than 30 student unions have banned the Sun, on the basis that Page Three could turn all those pre-rapists into actual rapists. Radical feminist students once burned their bras — now they insist that models put bras on. The union at UCL banned the Nietzsche Society on the grounds that its existence threatened ‘the safety of the UCL student body’.

Stepford concerns are over-amplified on social media. No sooner is a contentious subject raised than a university ‘campaign’ group appears on Facebook, or a hashtag on Twitter, demanding that the debate is shut down. Technology means that it has never been easier to whip up a false sense of mass outrage — and target that synthetic anger at those in charge. The authorities on the receiving end feel so besieged that they succumb to the demands and threats.

Heaven help any student who doesn’t bow before the Stepford mentality. The students’ union at Edinburgh recently passed a motion to ‘End lad banter’ on campus. Laddish students are being forced to recant their bantering ways. Last month, the rugby club at the London School of Economics was disbanded for a year after its members handed out leaflets advising rugby lads to avoid ‘mingers’ (ugly girls) and ‘homosexual debauchery’. Under pressure from LSE bigwigs, the club publicly recanted its ‘inexcusably offensive’ behaviour and declared that its members have ‘a lot to learn about the pernicious effects of banter’. They’re being made to take part in equality and diversity training. At British unis in 2014, you don’t just get education — you also get re-education, Soviet style.

The censoriousness has reached its nadir in the rise of the ‘safe space’ policy. Loads of student unions have colonised vast swaths of their campuses and declared them ‘safe spaces’ — that is, places where no student should ever be made to feel threatened, unwelcome or belittled, whether by banter, bad thinking or ‘Blurred Lines’. Safety from physical assault is one thing — but safety from words, ideas, Zionists, lads, pop music, Nietzsche? We seem to have nurtured a new generation that believes its self-esteem is more important than everyone else’s liberty.

This is what those censorious Cambridgers meant when they kept saying they have the ‘right to be comfortable’. They weren’t talking about the freedom to lay down on a chaise longue — they meant the right never to be challenged by disturbing ideas or mind-battered by offensiveness. At precisely the time they should be leaping brain-first into the rough and tumble of grown-up, testy discussion, students are cushioning themselves from anything that has the whiff of controversy. We’re witnessing the victory of political correctness by stealth. As the annoying ‘PC gone mad!’ brigade banged on and on about extreme instances of PC — schools banning ‘Baa Baa, Black Sheep’, etc. — nobody seems to have noticed that the key tenets of PC, from the desire to destroy offensive lingo to the urge to re-educate apparently corrupted minds, have been swallowed whole by a new generation. This is a disaster, for it means our universities are becoming breeding grounds of dogmatism. As John Stuart Mill said, if we don’t allow our opinion to be ‘fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed’, then that opinion will be ‘held as a dead dogma, not a living truth’.

One day, these Stepford students, with their lust to ban, their war on offensive lingo, and their terrifying talk of pre-crime, will be running the country. And then it won’t only be those of us who occasionally have cause to visit a campus who have to suffer their dead dogmas.

This article first appeared in the print edition of The Spectator magazine, dated 22 November 2014

Tags: Abortion, Free speech, Gender politics, Laddism, LSE, Philip K. Dick, political correctness, Rape culture, Sexism, Students, UCL, Universities, University of Cambridge, University of Oxford, Zionism

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to University trained brains : non- thinkers and conformers .

  1. Shawn phiilips says:

    Subject: Questions about Evolution

    This is one of the few message board rooms where there’s not a bunch of fighting and bickering. Here are some questions I would like to ask, and in no way are they hateful.
    1. Something from nothing? The “Big Bang”, the most widely accepted theory of the beginning of the universe, states that everything developed from a small, dense cloud of subatomic particles and radiation which exploded, forming hydrogen (and some helium) gas. Where did this energy/matter come from? How reasonable is it to assume it came into being from nothing? And even if it did come into being, what would cause it to explode? We know from common experience that explosions are destructive and lead to disorder. How reasonable is it to assume that a “big bang” explosion produced the opposite effect: increasing “information”, order and the formation of useful structures, such as stars and planets, and eventually people?

    2. Physical laws an accident? We know the universe is governed by several fundamental physical laws, such as electromagnetic forces, gravity, conservation of mass and energy, etc. The activities of our universe depend upon these principles like computer program depends upon the existence hardware with an instruction set. How reasonable is it to say that these great controlling principles developed by accident?

    3. Order from disorder? The Second Law of Thermodynamics may be the most verified law of science. It states that systems become more disordered over time, unless energy is supplied and directed to create order. Evolutionists say that the opposite has taken place, that order increased over time, without any directed energy. How can this be? Aside, evolutionists commonly object that the Second Law applies to closed, or isolated systems, and that the Earth is certainly not a closed system (it gets lots of ray energy from the Sun, for example). However, all systems, whether open or closed, tend to deteriorate. For example, living organisms are open systems, but they all decay and die. Also, the universe in total is a closed system. To say that the chaos of the “big bang” has transformed itself into the human brain with its 120 billion connections is a clear violation of the Second Law.

    We should also point out that the availability of raw energy to a system is a necessary but far from sufficient condition for a local decrease in entropy to occur. Certainly the application of a blowtorch to bicycle parts will not result in a bicycle assembled, only the careful application of directed energy will, such as from the hands of a person following a plan. The presence of energy from the sun does NOT solve the evolutionist’s problem of how increasing order could occur on the Earth, contrary to the Second Law.

    4. Information from randomness? Information theory states that “information” never arises out of randomness or chance events. Our human experience verifies this every day. How can the origin of the tremendous increase in information from simple organisms up to man be accounted for? Information is always introduced from the outside. It is impossible for natural processes to produce their own actual information, or meaning, which is what evolutionists claim has happened. Random typing might produce the string “dog”, but it only means something to an intelligent observer who has applied a definition to this sequence of letters. The generation of information always requires intelligence, yet evolution claims no intelligence was involved in the ultimate formation of a human being whose many systems contain vast amounts of information.

    5. Life from dead chemicals? Evolutionists claim that life formed from non-life (dead chemicals), so called “abiogenesis”, even though it is a biological law (“biogenesis”) that life only comes from life. The probability of the simplest imaginable replicating system forming by itself from non-living chemicals as been calculated to be so very small as to be essentially zero, much less than one chance in the number of electron-sized particles that could fit in the entire visible universe! Given these odds, is it reasonable to believe that life formed itself?

    6. Complex DNA and RNA by chance? The continued existence (the reproduction) of a cell requires both DNA (the “plan”) ad RNA (the “copy mechanism”), both of which are tremendously complex. How reasonable is it to believe that these two co-dependent necessities came into existence by chance at exactly the same time?

    7. Life is complex. We know and appreciate the tremendous amount of intelligent design and planning that went into landing a man on the moon. Yet the complexity of this task pales in comparison to the complexity of even the simplest life form. How reasonable is it to believe that purely natural processes, with no designer, no intelligence, and no plan, produced a human being.

    8. Where are the transitional fossils? If evolution as taken place our museums should be overflowing with the skeletons of countless transitional forms. Yet after over one hundred years of intense searching only a small number of transitional candidates re touted as proof of evolution. If evolution has really taken place, where are the transitional forms? And why does the fossil record actually show all species first appearing fully formed, with most nearly identical to current instances of the species? Aside, most of the examples, touted by evolutionists concentrate on just one feature of the anatomy, like a particular bone or the skull. A true transitional fossil should be intermediate in many, if not all aspects. The next time someone shows you how this bone change over time, ask them about the rest of the creature too! Many evolutionists still like to believe in the “scarcity” of the fossil record. Yet simple statistics will show that given you have found a number of fossils instances of a creature, the chances that you have missed every one of its imagined predecessors is very small. Consider the trilobites for example, these fossils are so common you can buy one for under $20, yet no fossils of a predecessor have been found.

    9. Could an intermediate even survive? Evolution requires the transition from one kind to another to be gradual. And don’t forget that “natural selection” is supposed to retain those individuals which have developed an advantage of some sort. How could an animal intermediate between one kind and another even survive (and why would it ever be selected for), when it would not be well-suited to either its old environment or its new environment? Can you even imagine a possible sequence of small changes which takes a creature from one kind to another, all the while keeping it not only alive, but improved? Aside, certainly a “light-sensitive spot” is better than no vision at all. But why would such a spot even develop? (Evolutionists like to take that for granted). And even if it did develop, to believe that mutations of such a spot eventually brought about the tremendous complexities of the human eye stains all common sense and experience.

    10. Reproduction without reproduction? A main tenet of evolution is the idea that things develop by a (unguided) series of small changes, caused by mutations, which are “selected” for, keeping the “better” changes over a very long period of time. How could the ability to reproduce evolve, without the ability to reproduce? Can you even imagine a theoretical scenario which would allow this to happen? And why would evolution produce two sexes, many times over? Asexual reproduction would seem to be more likely and efficient! Aside, to regulate the question of reproduction to “abiogenesis” does NOT address the problem. To assume existing, reproducing life for the principles of evolution to work on is a HUGE assumption which is seldom focused on in popular discussions.

    11. Plants without photosynthesis? The process of photosynthesis in plants is very complex. How could the first plant survive unless it already possessed this remarkable capability?

    12. How do you explain symbiotic relationships? There are many examples of plants and animals which have a “symbiotic” relationship (they need each other to survive). How can evolution explain this?

    13. It’s not good unless it’s complete. We know from everyday experience that an item is not generally useful until it is complete, whether it be a car, a cake, or a computer program. Why would natural selection start to make an eye, or an ear, or a wing (or anything else) when this item would not benefit the animal until it was completed?

    14. Explain metamorphosis. How can evolution explain the metamorphosis of the butterfly? Once the caterpillar evolves into the “mass of jelly” (out of which the butterfly comes), wouldn’t it appear to be “stuck”?

    15. It should be easy to show evolution. If evolution is the grand mechanism that has produced all natural things from a simple gas, surely this mechanism must be easily seen. It should be possible to prove its existence in a matter of weeks, or days, if not hours. Yet scientists have been bombarding countless generations of fruit flies with radiation for several decades in order to show evolution in action and still have only produced…more (deformed) fruit flies. How reasonable is it to believe that evolution is a fact when even the simplest of experiments has not been able to document it? Aside, the artificial creation of a new species is far too small of a change to prove that true “macro-evolution” is possible. A higher order change, where the information content of the organism has been increased should be showable and is not. Developing a new species changes the existing information, but does not add new information, such as would be needed for a new organ, for example.

    16. Complex things require intelligent design folks? People are intelligent. If a team of engineers were to one day design a robot which could cross all types of terrain, could dig large holes, could carry several times its weight, found its own energy sources, make some more robots like itself, and was only 1/8 of an inch tall, we would marvel at this achievement. All of our life’s experiences lead us to know that such a robot could never come about by accident, or assemble itself by chance, even if all the parts were available laying next to each other. And we are certain beyond doubt that a canister of hydrogen gas, no matter how long we left it there or what type of raw energy we might apply to it, would never result in such a robot being produced. But we already have such a “robot”, it is called an “ant”, and we squash them because they are “nothing” compared to people. And God made them, and he made us. Can there be any other explanation?

    Those are just a few questions. Here are some personal thoughts and some answers to some questions I’ve read in some posts.

    The Law of Reproduction states that any two species of the same kind (humans) with the fertilization of egg and sperm will produce the same. It doesn’t state hat two humans coming together will produce something different. But what about mutation? Millions upon millions of successful (or not so successful) mutations bring about humans? Why the need for mutation? A tiny, simple, one-celled organism thought that it wanted to be better than it was. Evolution by definition states: A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. Better form, how? What species rapes other members, has crack addictions, and murders for the sake of murdering? You might say that we have the mind to do that, and they don’t. Think about this, if there is no God, then almost all species are species are better form than us, they just do what they need to do to survive and reproduce. Why would evolution bring about a free will and a sense of feelings, when it would be destructive? That just show that we were created for companionship and didn’t evolve just for survival and reproduction. Also, if modern man was better than the last, how much longer would the earth last if we didn’t evolve. Why would an animal evolve into modern man? Did evolution make a mistake?

    Also, in Biology we don’t hear about the old modern day human skull that was put together with an orangutan jaw and called a Neanderthal. Or about the “Neanderthal” that was found to be 3 million years old, then later a lady said it was her great grandfather which was only 120 yrs. Old. The Neanderthal in Irleland later was later discovered to be all plaster except one tooth from a pig. Most people look to scientists (like I did) as though everything they say is right. If the newspaper in your town had the headline: “Evolution: A “Scientific Fact!”, do you know how many people would believe that just because it came from a scientists? Scientists know this and thought they could buy this idea right into the public easily, but when you start to mess with the Almighty, it don’t work. Now they have to cover their butts and “produce” information to make these claims true. That’s where the transitional phonies come in. The evolutionists thought (until very recently) that birds came from dinosaurs. Now they say they can’t because of embryonic development. It’s just like some evolutionists think, “Well, in time we will be able to explain it when we have more sufficient fossil evidence and technological advances” I say that it’s completely the opposite, just like what happened with the birds-from-dinosaurs theory. In time science will prove that evolution is just what it is, a theory.

    If you claim there is no God, then you’re saying that we are all an accident. If there is no force working behind something, or no reason for something being done, then it’s an accident. But science says there is a “force” of nature at work. Nature is defined as: The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world. I want to see this force. If you believe that nature cause evolution, then what caused nature, and can nature think? The force of nature causes change in the environment. Okay, then the force of nature must have been around in the beginning of the “big bang”. The force of nature seems pretty complex to me. Where is nature’s development? How could it have been around first? The force of nature was created by God for “micro-evolution” through natural selection, like the peppered moth in England.

    True science rejects the idea of evolution. If you can believe in evolution, then you have more faith in your idea than I have in mine.

    Another story I read from a post was that God is just passed down from parents to kids and so on, just like Santa Clause. Some say people only know about God because their parents told them. That is somewhat true. That just tells you that yes, God did talk to Adam and Eve in the beginning and they passed it on. However, even if someone isn’t “told” about God, they will still come to the perception of God. Perception is the recognition and interpretation of sensory stimuli based chiefly on memory. Without ever being told about God, how would you come up with the perception of God being that you would have no memory of him? I think that God put that perception into us just like some birds know to fly south for the winter. I guess you call it “inherited.” The verse tor hat is Romans 1:20: “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. So yes, either it will be passed on to you, or you will come to the perception of God by His “inherited” quality.

    Someone might say, “I just gotta have hard core physical proof, or I need to see him or talk to him before I believe.” We all live by truths, whether it be the right or the wrong truth. If it works for you, then you have the desire to call it truth. Someone may have the truth that there is no God, others could say they don’t know, and still others say there is a God. Whose truth is right and whose truth is wrong? The truth is only what we want it to be, or how far we wanna take it. Some people say they’re searching for the truth, but actually don’t have the desire to change for the truth, because the present situation “works” for them. If everyone is honest with himself or herself, then God will make the truth known.

    Now, how did God get here? Who made God? Well, that’s something I always wondered when I was agnostic or atheist (actually I didn’t care if there was a God or not). But after accepting Christ as Lord and Savior, the answer seems quite clear to me; He has always been here. That makes perfect sense to me when I think about it. God says, “I am.” Why would some people have a hard time with that? Corinthians 2:14 says: “The man without the Spirit does not accept things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

    God and his angels were up in heaven hangin out. Satan, like many people on earth today, got big-headed got kicked out. Then, God made man for companionship. God told Adam and Eve not to eat from the Tree o Knowledge. Satan deceived them and the first sin took place. Now who made the world like it is, God or man? Yeah, but God’s perfect, how could we sing? Sorry, but Satan’s not perfect and his own free will got the best of him.

    Now, about people saying that God should make the world right. How come he doesn’t come down here and fix things? He did!!! That’s why you’ll be opening presents on December 25, and that’s why you’ll be eating a Cadbury Crème Egg in March or April. His name is Jesus Christ. John 14:6 says: “I am the Way and the Truth the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me. Jesus is the only way to experience life. What about all the other religions? How can they all be wrong? Let’s see: Buddha, he died stayed dead, do they know where his bones are (they also have a fat statue that they worship). Muhammad, he died stayed dead, and they know where his bones are, plus they think that killing Christians will give them an automatic pass to heaven. Now that’s a mean God. Plus, in the Koran, the Divine Decree holds that every action or deed (good or bad) is controlled by Allah. Now, how in the heck can you be accountable for something when you die, when you had no control over it, and why would Allah punish you if he did it in the first place?

    Joseph Smith, he died stayed dead, and they know where his bones are. Jesus, he died, rose from the dead, and so can you, if you believe in the name of Jesus. The reason Christianity is the right one, is that it has a living God. Romans 10:13 says: “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. It’s not hard. What about people saying they have experienced God or talked to God. Can you talk to someone who isn’t there? Do all Christians have an imaginary friend, or are some suffering from multiple personality disorder, or does our brain make us to have a conversation with “something?” Are Christians being deceived? Or are we being the deceivers? Who is this God that they speak to? His name is Jesus Christ. Like said earlier, I was an evolutionist/agnostic, plus a halfway alcoholic. My mom went to the doctor and he found several lumps in her breasts and she also had blood in her urine. Three of the five things it could have been was cancer. I decided to give this God “thing”a try. What could I lose? She went to a healing service at a church one Sunday. She went back to the doctor the following week and he couldn’t explain it, but they were gone. Yeah your right, he didn’t say that it was God either. Can everything that is happening be explained? And If it can’t be explained are we right to assume that it’s God? I know that, yes, there are lots of stuff we still need to discover about ourselves, but on some things God is your answer. After mom was healed, I thought I owed God so I stayed in church, but there was no way I was gonna give up my alcohol. Well, time went on and God was working on me. I got saved a quit drinking in 3 ½ weeks.

    Besides the alcohol, my whole attitude toward life and people changed. Now that I look back on my last 20 years, I wish I could take it back. I wish I could have lived it for God. But, I’m also grateful that I’ve been on both sides of the curtain. With God, each day is an adventure of its own. Why all this change? Did my body release some chemical when I got saved that told me that I needed to stop drinking and start living for an unknown force? Well, actually it did, the “chemical” is called the Holy Spirit. I hope God will bless you all and that you come to the understanding Jesus is Lord. Remember, Satan can’t kill ya, but what he can do is pre-occupy your life with things, that in the end, don’t really matter.

    In Christ’s love,

    Shawn

  2. quest rolan says:

    Evolution Is Assumed to Be True

    Unfortunately, we live in a society where evolution is assumed to be fact. Research of literature written by evolutionists indicates that conclusions were drawn based on the starting assumption that evolution is fact. Various theories were then considered to see which one best fit the “fact” of evolution. In such cases, evolution itself was never questioned. It was never suggested that intelligent, supernatural design might actually be a more reasonable theory and have more evidence to support it. The assumption that evolution is fact has held sway for decades, and it will only change as scientists choose to promote the facts that are now abounding from hard science.

    Analyzing the Fossil Record

    The reason why so many biologists, whether they believe in evolution or not, don’t
    think that the fossil record provides evidence for evolution is because all the organisms that make up the fossil record are fully formed and fully functional. We don’t find lizards with small pieces of feathers starting to form on their scales. Fossilized life-forms either have feathers or they don’t. We don’t find organisms with only retina casings. They either have eyeballs or they don’t. We don’t find any with stubs for legs. They either have legs or they don’t.

    What Sort of Change Does the Fossil Record Show?

    The fossil record actually shows that ancient specimens have forms virtually identical to life-forms in existence today. Below are some examples:

    • “The oldest fossils of land-dwelling animals are millipedes, dating to more than 425 million years ago. Incredibly, the archaic forms are nearly indistinguishable from certain groups living today.”[William A. Shear, “Millipedes,” American Scientists, vol. 87 (May/June 1999), p. 234]
    • “The Florissant Fossil Beds in Colorado are internationally renowned for the variety and quantity (over 60,000 specimens) of fossils discovered. These fossils date to about 35 million years ago, roughly the halfway mark between the age of the dinosaurs and the first humans. The finds include over 1100 different species of insects. According the National Park Service’s Geological Resources Division, ‘the fossils indicate that insects 35 million years ago were much like those today.’” [National Park Service, Geologic Resources Division, “Geology Fieldnotes, Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument, Colorado,” http://www.aqd.nps.gov/grd/parks/fifo/
    • “A fossil dealer found fossilized jellyfish encased in about 12 vertical feet of rock, which scientists say, represents a span of time of up to 1 million years, according to a Reuters article, ‘The fossilized jellyfish appear similar in size and characteristics to their modern brethren.’” [Andrew Bridges, “Rare Fossilized Jellyfish Found,” January 25, 2002, http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/
    20020125/sc/fossiljellyfish1.html

    If the fossil record confirms anything, it confirms the reality of little change. Plants and animals that existed millions of years ago are much like plants and animals today.

    Is the Fossil Record Complete?

    Charles Darwin wrote in On the Origin of Species that

    Natural selection can act only by the preservation and accumulation
    of infinitesimally small inherited modifications, each profitable to the
    preserved being. [Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species (Cambridge,
    MA: Harvard University Press, 2000), p. 95]

    He went on to ask,

    Why, of species have descended from other species by insensibly find graduations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?
    Why, is not all nature in confusion [he is talking about today’s plants and
    animals] instead of the species being as we see them, well defined?
    (Darwin, p. 171)

    Finally, he wondered,

    But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed,
    by do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of
    the earth? (Darwin, p. 172)

    At Darwin’s time, we had unearthed relatively few fossils compared to the countless millions we have to analyze today. But the validity of his point hasn’t changed. If the fossil record actually demonstrated evolution, we would have found “innumerable” transitional species showing infinitesimally small variations.

    The Numbers Just Don’t Add Up

    Today, tens of millions of fossils have been unearthed and categorized. We have defined 250,000 distinct fossilized species. If true transitional forms existed, we should have at least the same number of transitional species, perhaps far more, given that many small changes would have taken place over time.

    Even if we consider punctuated equilibrium, which theorizes sudden, abrupt evolutionary change and is a suggested alternative to the gradual neo-Darwinian model, an abundance of true transitional fossils should still be present. And in line with neo-Darwinian theory, we would also expect the gaps between developing, diverging species to be small.

    The numbers just aren’t there, though.
    First, there are no true transitional species in the fossil record at all. (Only fully formed fossils with similar appearances are thought by some biologists to be transitions.)

    Second, the rapid appearance of many separate, fully formed species, in the Cambrian explosion contradicts the gradualism proposed by neo-Darwinists. (It also confounds the molecular biologists who have to confront the questions of irreducible complexity and mutation through vast DNA change.

    In the intelligent-design paradigm, however, we would expect fully formed, fully functional creatures to suddenly appear. And naturally, there would be differences, gaps, between the various species. This is exactly what the fossil record indicates.

  3. scott forest says:

    SCIENTIFIC FACTS & FOREKNOWLEDGE OF THE BIBLE

    Science means knowledge, and true science always agrees with the observable evidence. Scientific research continues to unfold the wonders and mysteries of our universe. Interestingly, there is one book that has anticipated many of these scientific facts. That book is the Bible.

    The following are several scientific facts found in the Scriptures. Many of these facts were penned centuries before they were discovered. Scientific foreknowledge found only in the Bible offers one more piece of the collective proof that the Bible is truly the inspired Word of the Creator.

    1. The earth free-floats in space (Job 26:7), affected only by gravity. While other sources declared the earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up by Atlas, the Bible alone states what we now know to be true: “He hangs the earth on nothing.”
    2. Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements.

    3. Oceans contain springs (Job 38:16). The ocean is very deep, almost all the ocean floor is in total darkness and the pressure there is enormous. It would been impossible for Job to have explored the “springs of the sea.” Until recently, it was thought that the oceans were fed only by rivers and rain. Yet in the 1970’s, with the help of deep diving research submarines that were constructed to withstand 6,000 pounds-per-square-inch pressure, oceanographers discovered springs on the ocean floors!

    4. Joy and gladness understood (Acts 14:17). Evolution cannot explain emotions. Matter and energy do not feel. Scripture explains that God places gladness in our hearts (Psalm 4:7), and ultimate joy is found in our Creator’s presence, “in Your presence is fullness of joy” (Psalm 16:11).

    5. The bible states that God created life according to kinds (Genesis 1:24). The fact that God distinguishes kinds, agrees with what scientists observe, namely that there are horizontal genetic boundaries beyond which life cannot vary. Life produces after its own kind. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, roses produce roses. Never have we witnessed one kind changing into another kind as evolution supposes. There are truly natural limits biological change.

    6. Chicken or egg dilemma solved (Genesis 1:20-22). Which came first, the chicken or the egg? This question has plagued philosophers for centuries. The Bible states that God created birds with the ability to reproduce after their kind. Therefore the chicken was created first with the ability to make eggs! Yet, evolution has no solution for this dilemma.

    7. Which came first, proteins or DNA (Revelation 4:11)? For evolutionists, the chicken or egg dilemma goes even deeper. Chicken consist of proteins. The code for each protein is contained in the DNA/RNA system. However, proteins are required in order to manufacture DNA. So which came first: proteins or DNA? The ONLY explanation is that they were created together.

    8. The First Law of Thermodynamics established (Genesis 2:1-2). The First Law states that the total quantity of energy and matter in the universe is a constant. One form of energy or matter may be converted into another, but the total quantity always remains the same. Therefore the creation is finished, exactly as God said way back in Genesis.

    9. The first three verses of Genesis accurately express all known aspects of the creation (Genesis 1:1-3). Science expresses the universe in terms of time, space, matter and energy. In Genesis chapter one we read: “In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)…Then God said, Let there be light (energy).” No other creation account agrees with the observable evidence.

    10. The universe had a beginning (Genesis 1:1, Hebrews 1:10-12). Starting with the studies of Albert Einstein in the early 1900s and continuing today, science has confirmed the biblical view that the universe had a beginning. When the Bible was written most people believed the universe was eternal. Science has proven them wrong, but the Bible correct.

    11. The Second Law of Thermodynamics (Enthropy) explained (Psalm 102:25-26). This law states that everything in the universe is running down, deteriorating, constantly becoming less and less orderly. Enthropy (disorder) entered when mankind rebelled against God, resulting in the curse (Genesis 3:17). Historically, most people believed the universe was unchangeable. Yet modern science verifies that the universe is “grow old like a garment” (Hebrews 1:11). Evolution directly contradicts this law.

    12. Rejecting the Creator results in moral depravity (Romans 1:20-32). The Bible warns that when mankind rejects the overwhelming evidence for a Creator, lawlessness will result. Since the theory of evolution has swept the globe, abortion, pornography, genocide, etc., have all risen sharply.

    13. The fact that God once flooded the earth (the Noahic Flood) would be denied (2 Peter 3:5-6). There is a mass of fossil evidence to prove this fact, yet it is flatly ignored by most of the scientific world because it was God’s judgment on man’s wickedness.

    14. Vast fossil deposits anticipated (Genesis 7). When plants and animals die they decompose rapidly. Yet billions of life forms around the globe have been preserved as fossils. Geologist now know that fossils only form if there is rapid deposition of life buried away from scavengers and bacteria. This agrees exactly with what the Bible says occurred during the global Flood.

    15. The earth was designed for biological life (Isaiah 45:18). Scientists have discovered that the most fundamental characteristics of our earth and cosmos are so finely tuned that if just one of them were even slightly different, life as we know it couldn’t exist. This is called the Anthropic Principle and it agrees with the Bible which states that God formed the earth to be inhabited.

    16. Our ancestors were not primitive (Genesis 4:20-22; Job 8:8-10; 12:12). Archeologists have discovered that our ancestors mined, had metallurgical factories, created air-conditioned buildings, designed musical instruments, studied the stars, and much more. This evidence directly contradicts the theory of evolution, but agrees completely with God’s Word.

    17. The order of creation agrees with science (Genesis 1). Plants require sunlight, water, and minerals in order to survive. In the first chapter of Genesis we read that God created light first (v.3), then water (v.6), then soil (v.9), and then He created life (v.11).

    18. Strong and weak nuclear force explained (Colossians 1:17) Physicists do not understand what binds the atom’s nucleus together. Yet, the Bible states that “all things consist”, or are held together by the Creator, Jesus Christ

    19. Atomic fission anticipated (2 Peter 3:10-12). Scripture states that “the elements will melt with fervent heat” when the earth and the heavens are “dissolved” by fire. Today we understand that if the elements of the atom are loosed, there would be an enormous release of heat and energy (radiation).

    20. Animal instincts understood (Job 39; Proverbs 30:24-28). A newly hatched spider weaves an intricate web without being taught. A recently emerged butterfly somehow knows to navigate a 2,500 mile migration route without a guide. God explains that He has endowed each creature with specific knowledge. Scripture, not evolution, explains animal instincts.

    21. Pseudo-science anticipated (1 Timothy 6:20). The theory of evolution contradicts the observable evidence. The Bible warned us in advance that there would be those who would profess: “profane and idle babblings, and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge (science).” True science agrees with the Creator’s Word.

    22. Science confirms the Bible (Colossians 2:3). These insights place the Bible far above every man-made theory and all other so called inspired books. In contrast, the Koran states that the sun sets in a muddy pond (Surah 18:86). The Hadith contains many myths. The Book of Mormon declares that Native Americans descended from Jews, which has been disproven by DNA research. The Eastern writings also contradict true science.

    23. Love explained (Matthew 22:37-40; 1 John 4:7-12). Evolution cannot explain love. Yet, God’s word reveals that the very purpose of our existence is to know and love God and our fellow man. God is love, and we were created in His image to reflect His love.

    The cause of suffering revealed (Genesis 3; Isaiah 24:5-6). The earth is subject to misery, which appears at odds with our wonderfully designed universe. However, the Bible, not evolution, explains the origin of suffering. When mankind rebelled against God, the curse resulted, introducing affliction, pain and death into the world.

    Death explained (Romans 6:23). All eventually die. The Bible alone explains why we die, “The soul who sins shall die” (Ezekiel 18:20). Sin is transgression of God’s Law. To see if you will die, please review God’s Ten Commandments (Exodus 20). Have you ever lied? (White lies an fibs count). Ever stolen? (Cheating on a test or taxes is stealing). Jesus said that “whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matthew 5:28). Have you ever looked with lust? Then you’re an adulterer at heart. Have you ever hated someone or called someone a fool? If so, the Bible says you are guilty of murder (Matthew 5:21-2; 1 John 3:15). Have you ever used your Creator’s name (Lord, God, Jesus, or Christ) in vain? This is called blasphemy, and God hates it. If you have broken these commandments at any time, then by your own admission, you are a blasphemer, a murderer, an adulterer, a thief, and a liar at heart. And we have only looked at five of the Ten Commandments. This is why we die.

    Justice understood (Acts 17:30). Our God-given conscience reveals that all sin will be judged. Down deep we know that He who created the eyes sees every secret sin (Romans 2:16). He who formed our mind remembers our past offense as if it just occurred. God has declared that the penalty for sin is death. Physical death comes first, then second death, which is eternal separation from God in the lake of fire (Revelation 21:8). God cannot lie. Every sin will be judged. His justice demands it. But God is also rich in mercy to all who call upon His name. He has made a way for justice to be served and mercy to be shown.

    Eternal life revealed (John 3:16). Scientists reach in vain for the cure for aging and death. Yet, the good news is that God, who is the source of all life, has made a way to freely forgive us so that we may live forever with Him in heaven. “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners. Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). God desires a loving, eternal relationship with each person, free from sin, fear, and pain. Therefore, He sent His Son to die as our substitute on the cross. “The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:23). Jesus never sinned, therefore He alone qualified to pay the penalty for our sins on the cross. He died in our place. He then rose from the grave defeating death. All who turn from their sins and trust Him will be saved. To repent and place your trust in Jesus Christ, make Psalm 51 your prayer. Then read your Bible daily, obeying what you read. God will never let you down.

    The solution to suffering (Revelation 21). Neither evolution nor religion offers a solution to suffering. But God offers heaven as a gift to all who trust in His Son. In heaven. “God will wipe away every tear from their eyes, there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away” (Revelation 21:4).

    The Bible offers the only remedy for sin, suffering, and death. God’s Word presents the only perfect, sinless Savior, one who died for our sins and rose from the dead. Jesus is the Creator (John 1: Colossians 1). He said, “I and My Father are one” (John 10:30). He said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6). And He promises His followers: “I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish” (John 10:28). Your eternal destiny will be determined by your choice. There is only one provision for sin. Jesus died in your place. Only faith in Christ’s finished work will you be saved. This is God’s free gift offered to all.

    Please do not let pride, religion, opinions, or love for sin separate you from God. No sin is worth an eternity in hell. Please heed Jesus’ words, “Repent, and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:15). If you do, you will live in heaven with our awesome Creator forever!

  4. Tha Feina says:

    Please check out these very interesting and informative videos on:

    • The Secret Code
    • Chinese Pictographs
    • The Ice Age
    • Cambrian Explosion
    • Carbon-14 Dating
    • Dino Tracks
    • Chimp DNA
    • Echolocation

    http://www.icr.org/thatsafact

  5. schin creigh says:

    Science and the Bible: Cosmos and Creator

    By Mark Eastman, M.D.

    They have been called the two greatest questions that face mankind: Does God exist, and if He does, what is His nature? Since the time of the ancient Greek philosophers, the answer to these questions have been sought by examining the nature of the universe and its life forms.

    The Cosmos

    When Albert Einstein published the first of his relativity theories in 1905, he shocked the physics community with a staggering new view of space, time, matter and energy. Though he did not know it at the time, his theories provide dramatic insights into the attributes of the Creator of the cosmos.

    Among other things, what Einstein’s theories revealed was that the flow of time and the structure of space were relative to the velocity, mass and acceleration of the observers. That is, their observed values were not fixed: they were relative.

    For thousands of years, scientists and philosophers believed that time was nothing more than an abstract notion, conceived in the minds of men, and used to describe the change seen in the physical world. Time, it was believed, was not a thing, it was a mental contrivance. Einstein showed that this was wrong. Time, Einstein showed, was “plastic.” That is, it is a physical property of the universe, and that the observed rate that time flows depends on the physical conditions present at the measuring device.

    Several years after Einstein’s theories were published, astronomer Willem de Sitter found a mathematical error in Einstein’s equations. When corrected, he found a startling mathematical prediction buried within his equations: The universe was finite! Space-time, matter, and energy had a beginning.

    In his book, It’s About Time, popular author and physicist Paul Davies remarks on this incredible discovery.

    Modern scientific cosmology in the most ambitious enterprise of all to
    emerge from Einstein’s work. When scientists began to explore the
    implications of Einstein’s time for the universe as a whole, they made
    one of the most important discoveries in the history of human thought:
    that time, and hence all physical reality, must have had a definite origin
    in the past. If time is flexible and mutable, as Einstein demonstrated, then
    tt is possible for time to come into existence, and also to pass away again;
    there can be a beginning and an end of time. (Paul Davies, It’s About Time,
    Touchstone Books/Simon and Schuster, 1995, pg. 17.)

    The Skeptic

    I recently had an opportunity to speak on the origin of life at a major public university in Southern California. In attendance were a number of professors who are self-described agnostics. During the question period, one of the professors admitted that the evidence is compelling that the universe was indeed finite. He said that while he could not believe in God (because he couldn’t see Him, or study Him scientifically) he said he did believe that someday scientists would discover a law that would explain the origin and order of the universe and its life forms.

    After pointing out that he had just expressed faith, the belief in things unseen, but hoped for, I asked him if he believed that the laws of physics, which work in our space-time domain, also had a beginning. He was forced to concede that they did because they would have no place to act before the space-time domain existed.

    The final blow came when I asked him if he then believed that some “law” of physics could explain the origin of the laws of physics! He saw the point: The laws of physics cannot be the cause of the laws of physics! The cause of the universe and its laws must be independent of the space-time domain, exactly as the Bible claimed 3,500 years earlier!

    Apostle Paul’s statement regarding the attributes of God being discerned by an examination of the nature of the universe is quite staggering, considering the state of scientific knowledge in the first century A.D. At that time it was commonly believed that the universe was eternal. In the face of that commonly held bias, the Bible clearly taught that the universe was finite, and the Creator is independent of time and space, exactly as 20th century cosmology suggests.

    In the Beginning God created the heavens and the earth… Genesis 1:1
    …God, (v.9) who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not
    according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace
    which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began.
    2 Timothy 1:8-9

    …in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before
    time began. Titus 1:2

    The finiteness of space-time not only points to a Creator who is independent of the cosmos, but it also gives us insight into the minimum resume of such a Being.

    The Uncaused Cause

    In my discussion with the agnostic professors, I asked them to give me the caveat, for the sake of my next argument, that God did indeed exist. They agreed. I then asked them what would be the minimum “resume” of such a Being. Remarkably, they were quite insightful in their deductions. They quickly recognized that such a Being would not only have to be independent of space-time, but must also be incredibly powerful, incredibly intelligent and able to act unencumbered, simultaneously inside and outside the time domain. Remarkably, without recognizing it, they had described the resume of the Creator as revealed in the Biblical text!

    Among other things, the law of cause and effect asserts that a cause is always greater than its effect. Applied to the cosmos it means that the Creator must be more powerful than all the energy stored in all the stars in all the galaxies in the entire universe. Physicists believe that there are at least 1080 particles in the universe. Einstein’s famous equation, E=mc2 indicates that the energy stored in the mass of the universe is equal to the mass times the speed of light squared! From this perspective, the Creator must be an all-powerful, omnipotent Being. This very attribute is credited to God throughout the Bible’s text.

    Ah Lord GOD! Behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy
    great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for
    thee. Jeremiah 32:17

    Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there anything too hard
    for me? Jeremiah 32:27

    In my discussion with the professors even they admitted that all the chemists, molecular biologists and physicists in the world combined have been unable to create a DNA molecule from raw elements: hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, phosphorus, etc. Moreover, molecular biologists admit that living cells are metabolic machines which are vastly more complicated than any machine made by mankind. They agreed in principle that the nature of these cellular “machines” would require a Being possessing unfathomable intelligence. Such a Being would be, from our limited perspective, an all-knowing, omniscient Creator. Throughout the Bible’s text God is described in such terms. For example, in Jeremiah 1:5, God’s omniscience is illustrated in his foreknowledge of the prophet even before he was born:

    Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I
    sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations. Jeremiah 1:5

    The infinite knowledge of God is proclaimed in 1 John 3:20 and in Psalm 147:5:

    For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knows
    all things 1 John 3:20

    Great is our Lord, and mighty in power; his understanding is infinite.
    Psalm 147:5

    Finally, if our space-time domain is the direct creation of God, then once he created the cosmos, in order to organize and uphold the galaxies, solar systems and its life forms, the Creator must be able to act simultaneously, inside and outside the space time domain. This attribute we call omnipresence. This too is an attribute that is ascribed to God throughout the Bible’s text.

    Am I a God near at hand,” says the LORD,”And not a God afar off? Can
    anyone hide himself in secret places, So I shall not see him?” says the
    LORD; “Do I not fill heaven and earth?” says the LORD. Jeremiah 23:23-24

    For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in
    the midst of them. Matthew 18:20

  6. Faye bilia says:

    FASCINATING FACTS CONCERNING THE BIBLE

    William Albright (1891 – 1971). Once a director of the School of Oriental Research at Johns Hopkins University, William Albright wrote more than 800 books and articles, mostly on the validity of biblical manuscripts. He is best known for his work in confirming the authenticity of the Old Testament, and especially the authentication of the Dead Sea scrolls.

    Albright also researched and confirmed the dating of the writings of the New Testament. His conclusion was that there was “no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80.” Early in his professional life, Albright had some doubts about the validity of biblical claims about Jesus. These, however, were answered conclusively in favor of the authenticity of the Bible as he conducted his research.

    Sir William Ramsay (1852-1916). Sir William Ramsay was, arguably the greatest archaeologist of his day. He had rejected much of the written New Testament account and was determined to prove it false based on other writings of the day that contradicted the Bible. Ramsay believed that the books of Luke and Acts were actually written in about A.D. 150 and therefore did not bear the authenticity that first-century document would. His archaeological journeys took him to 32 countries, 44 cities, and 9 islands. Throughout some 15 years of intensive study, he concluded that “Luke is a historian of the first rank, this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.”

    What Critics Thought
    • There was no Roman census (as indicated in Luke 2:1).

    What Ramsay Discovered: There was a Roman census every 14 years, beginning with Emperor Augustus.

    • Quirinius was not governor of Syria at the time of Jesus’ birth (as indicated in Luke 2:2).
    What Ramsay Discovered: Quirinius was governor of Syria in about 7 B.C.

    • People did not have to return to their ancestral home (as indicated in Luke 2:3).
    What Ramsay Discovered: People did have to return to their home city, verified by an ancient Egyptian papyrus giving directions for conducting a census.

    • The existence of the treasurer of the city of Corinth, Erastus (Romans 16:23), was incorrect.
    What Ramsay Discovered: A city pavement in Corinth bearing the inscription “Erastus, curator of public buildings, laid this pavement at his own expense.”

    • Luke’s reference to Gallio as proconsul of Achaia was wrong (Acts 18:12).
    What Ramsay Discovered: The Delphi inscription that reads, “As Lucius Junius Gallio, my friend and proconsul of Achaia.”

    Time and time again Ramsay’s search to find evidence that Luke’s writing was in error turned up evidence that it was, in fact, accurate. As a result, Sir William Ramsay eventually converted to Christianity proclaimed Luke as “one of the greatest historians” of all time.

    Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853) Greenleaf, (former Atheist), one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School, and a world-renowned expert on evidence, originally set out to disprove the biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He was certain that a careful examination of the internal witness of the Gospels would dispel all the myths at the heart of Christianity. But this legal scholar came to the conclusion that the witnesses were reliable, and that the resurrection did in fact happen. Being a man of conviction and reason, and in accordance with his conclusions, Greenleaf converted from Agnosticism to Christianity.

    Ralph Muncaster, (former atheist) in his book: Examine the Evidence, presents extensive evidence to validate the truth-claims of Christianity. He provides compelling arguments from science, biblical prophecy, history, and archaeology. This former skeptic points out that of all religions and philosophies on earth, only one, Christianity is verifiable and testable.

    1,456 hours of Sunday school and church turned Ralph Muncaster into a hard-core atheist. Then he was challenged to honestly investigate the Bible and the facts of modern science. He was stunned. Fact after fact, from biology, history, archaeology, physics, lined up with the Bible’s account!

    The Bible Itself Argues Against the Possibility of Its Corruption

    The charge that the Bible has been corrupted, contradicts what the Bible itself teaches. After all, in Isaiah 40:8 we read, “The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands for ever.” In the New Testament Jesus says, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away” (Matthew 24:35).

    The Almighty God who had the power and sovereign control to inspire the Scriptures in the first place is surely going to continue to exercise His power and sovereign control in the preservation of Scripture.

  7. skyan foren says:

    The Systems Inside Living Things

    Imagine that you’ve landed on another planet. You encounter a robot-like creature with multiple parts. Perhaps it has headlight-like “eyes.” Maybe it has numerous steel lever “arms.” And you notice that it rolls around on a complex set of wheels that can be raised and lowered to fit the terrain. You would intuitively know that the robot had been created. In fact, you would recognize that human beings have been able to create such things.

    Yet, for instance, the same type of motors that would be used in such a robot are found by the trillions in the human body. They have the same basic parts, but they’re 200,000 times smaller than a pinhead. Every cell in our body has hundreds of these motors. And in terms of efficiency, at the center of the motor is a wheel that turns at about 100 revolutions per second. [David Rosevear, “The Myth of Chemical Evolution,” Impact, July 1999, p. iv; as cited in Richard A. Swenson, More Than Meets the Eye (Colorado Springs, CO: Nav Press, 2000), p. 188.]

    Today’s molecular biology has made it even easier for us to understand we have been created by some incredibly intelligent designer, now that we can investigate the amazing biological machinery we can’t even see.

    All this is nothing new. Even in ancient times people would notice the intricate details of a flower, all the minute, complex components. Or they would observe a centipede, so small, yet so complex. Looking at more complex creatures, they would ask, how did all the body parts seem to “know” how to form themselves together? How did they “know” where to go? How did they “know” how to diagnose and repair themselves? How did they “know” how to grow? How did these creatures “know” how to reproduce? The questions go on and on. Even on the “macroscale” of complete plants and animals, their complexity and design has been obvious for millennia.

    Let’s look at one more example gained from the recent major advances in molecular biology: the amazing harmony of the “factory systems” of a human cell. Gerald Schroeder, who holds a PhD from MIT, describes it this way:

    Other than sex and blood cells, every cell in your body is making approximately
    two thousand proteins every second. A protein is a combination of three
    hundred to over a thousand amino acids. An adult human body is made of
    approximately seventy five trillion cells. Every second of every minute of
    every day, your body and every body is organizing on the order of 150
    thousand, thousand, thousand, thousand, thousand, thousand amino acids
    into carefully constructed chains of proteins. Every second; every minute;
    every day. The fabric from which we, and all life is built, is being continuously
    rewoven at a most astoundingly rapid rate.

    [Gerald L. Schroeder, The Hidden Face of God (New York: The Free Press, 2001),pg. 188.]

    It defies logic to pretend that such complex systems, systems that work together in such a precise and harmonious way, came about randomly. It is plainly absurd.

    The evidence that God exists is all around us and inside us. You have been given the ability to observe the phenomena around you and reason whether it is a product of blind forces or an intelligent Creator.

  8. eva sciano says:

    THE EYE

    Ming Wang: A Chinese Atheist at Harvard

    The existence of God is demonstrated powerfully in the amazing journey of Ming Wang, MD, PhD, one of the world’s foremost laser eye surgeons. He is a Harvard and MIT honors graduate and one of a small number of cataract and LASIK surgeons in the world who holds a doctorate in laser physics. He has performed well over fifty-five thousand cataract and LASIK procedures, including over four thousand on fellow doctors. Dr. Wang performed the world’s first 3-D LASIK and was one of the first surgeons in the United States to perform laser cataract surgery.

    He came to America from China and was led to Christ by a professor at Harvard. He flatly stated, “As a medical doctor and a scientist I can firmly attest to the fact that it is impossible for natural selection to explain the amazing intricacies of the eye.” The eye contains countless components that focus images, adjust for brightness, and process information to create a picture in the mind. In addition, the visual system is coordinated with locomotion and balance. Such a system clearly requires numerous parts to function together properly to be of any use.

    While Ming was at Harvard Medical School and MIT, a Christian pediatric professor sensed the opportunity to influence then-atheist Ming and took him out for lunch. “What is across the street?” he asked.

    “A car,” Ming responded.
    “What is the difference between a car and human brain?”
    Ming answered confidently, “A brain is much more complex.”
    The professor then made this critical point: “Can you imagine a random pile of scrap metals assembling themselves into a car?”
    “No!”
    “Then, how about a human brain? Could it assemble itself?”

    To this day, Ming feels deeply indebted to the professor, whom he admired scientifically and who cared enough about young Ming, sensed his struggle with science, and pointed out the way to Jesus Christ. Ming says now that he has found the Lord for himself, he needs to do what the professors did years ago in helping him, namely, use his scientific influence and medical reputation to encourage the next generation of young doctors to search for truth and find answers in Christianity. “As a Christian and a scientist, I do believe that faith and science are compatible and can work together. Actually it is through uniting rather than separating them and through perseverance and believing that God has created this world, and it is without contradictions, that we can actually find new, unexpected, and more powerful solutions to the problems in our lives.”

    Fascinating Facts about the Eye

    • The eye is so intricate and complex that there is only one chance in 1078 that any two humans would have the same characteristics.

    • It would take a minimum of 100 years of Cray Supercomputer time to simulate what takes place in your eye every second.

    • In the retina there are 120 million rods (for dim, night, and peripheral vision) and about 7 million cones (for color and detail vision).

  9. eva barros says:

    The Moon Rules
    by James J. S. Johnson, J.D., Th.D. *
    Evidence for Creation

    Earth is ruled, in part, by lunar rhythms. It is “tuned” to the moon’s periodic rhythms in its daily and monthly cycles as well as annual seasons. This illustrates Genesis 1:16, which states God purposefully programmed the moon to “rule” the night.

    Animistic and polytheistic religions personify the moon, but what does Genesis teach about its effects on the earth and creatures living here? In other words, how can the moon, which is inanimate, rule anything?

    God programmed the moon to rule in at least two ways: 1) by gravitational attraction—which is physically quite forceful; and 2) by providing a recurring pattern of reflected light to Earth, which rotates daily as the moon orbits the earth.

    The moon’s physical regulation, by gravity and by moonlight photoperiodicity (periodic light exposure), can be analytically compared to the inanimate governor device (also called a “speed limiter”) that can be installed to regulate the top speed of a commercial truck. The truck’s governor is inanimate, yet it implements the purposeful intention of the intelligent engineer who devised it to limit how fast a truck can go on the highways.1 Likewise, the moon mechanically implements the intelligent design that God selected for its fine-tuned movements and regulatory functions.

    Moonlight Photoperiodicity Rules the Earth

    How important to life on Earth is moonlight and its periodic rhythms?

    No physical factor is of greater interest to the ecologist than light. It is, first, a source of energy; second, a limiting factor (since too little or too much kills); and third, an extremely important regulator of daily and seasonal activities for a great many organisms, both plant and animal.…One of the most dependable environmental cues by which organisms time their [developmental and periodic] activities in temperate zones is the day-length period, or photoperiod….Photoperiod [can regulate] a physiological sequence that brings about molting, fat deposition, migration, and breeding in temperate-zone birds.…However, one can produce out-of-season fat deposition, migratory restlessness, and an increase in size of reproductive organs in midwinter in the laboratory by an artificial increase in the light period.2

    Moonlight affects Earth by each diurnal (day/night) cycle, by each lunar-month cycle (i.e., new moon, second quarter, full moon, fourth quarter phases), and by the annual cycle of recurring seasons. The equinox-to-equinox year varies the ratio of daylight to moonlight, so days get “shorter” and “longer” depending on the time of year.3

    Lunar light regulates Pacific salmon smolt migratory movements.4 Moonlight intensity and daylight/moonlight ratios, which vary with the seasons, regulate salmon migration, growth, and development.5 Even some plant chlorophyll activity depends in part on moonlight.6

    Lunar Gravity Rules the Earth

    Lunar gravity forcefully regulates Earth’s tides worldwide.7 Christmas Island red crabs depend on tidal rhythms to time their migrations to beaches to mate and deposit the next generation of baby crabs into high-tide waters.8 Likewise, barnacles, as anchored filter-feeders, depend on the tides to wash up planktonic nutrients, providing ready meals on tidal waves.9 Many more examples of tide-dependent animal behaviors could be given.

    Even plants depend on the rhythmic pull of the moon’s gravity. The moon’s monthly cycle regulates water in cultivated soil, triggering seed swelling, seed bursting, seed germination, leaf growth, root growth—which is why the lunar cycle-timed Jewish feasts of Leviticus 23 coincide with spring and autumn harvest cycles.6

    Bottom line: Genesis 1:16 teaches that God made the moon to rule the night. Creation provides a host of witnesses—crabs, barnacles, salmon, crops, and more—that corroborate that truth.

    References

    1. The usage of speed-limiting “governors” was tested by this author, years ago, when he was a Class B truck-driver.
    2. Odum, E. P. 1975. Ecology: The Link Between the Natural and the Social Sciences, 2nd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 113-114.
    3. Genesis 8:22.
    4. “The 29.5-day cycle of moonlight does have a timing function in some fish behavior.” Smith, R. J. F. 2012. The Control of Fish Migration. New York: Springer-Verlag.
    5. Ditlefsen, A., translation by C. Stultz and C. B. Eckmann. Salmon Thrive on Electric Lighting. The Research Council of Norway. Posted on forskningsradet.no August 20, 2007, accessed July 2, 2015.
    6. Norten, M. 2015. Unlocking the Secrets of the Feasts: The Prophecies in the Feasts of Leviticus. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 38-39.
    7. “The part of the earth that is closest to the moon at any given moment will feel the moon’s gravitational pull most strongly…this pull is experienced as high tide.” Amos, W. H. and S. H. Amos. 1985. Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 27-28. For analysis, see James J. S. Johnson’s An Oceanographer’s Insight, for Researching and Analyzing Oceanic and Littoral Ecosystem Dynamics, Guided by ‘High-Definition’ Biblical Philology, Creation Research Society Conference, Dallas, Texas, July 31, 2015, 67 pages.
    8. See Johnson, J. J. S. 2011. A Christmas Carol in Four-Part Harmony. Acts & Facts. 40 (12): 8-10 describing tide-governed phenology of red crabs.
    9. Regarding filter-feeding barnacles, dependent upon moon-ruled tidewaters for planktonic food, see Amos, Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, 454-455.
    10.
    * Dr. Johnson is Associate Professor of Apologetics and Chief Academic Officer at the Institute for Creation Research.

    Cite this article: James J. S. Johnson, J.D., Th.D. 2015. The Moon Rules. Acts & Facts. 44 (9).

  10. eva barros says:

    EVIDENCE FOR GOD

    Lecture notes by CHARLIE H. CAMPBELL
    Director of The Always Be Ready Apologetics Ministry

    1. THE COSMOS

    As David and Paul pointed out in the Bible (Psalm 19:1-6; Romans 1:20), the universe itself testifies to the fact that God exists.
    Abraham Lincoln said, “I can see how it might be possible for a man to look down upon Earth and be an atheist, but I cannot conceive how he could look up into the heavens and say that there is no God.” [Source]

    Let’s think about this for a minute. Philosophers and thinkers down through the ages have narrowed down the explanations for the universe’s existence into three possibilities.

    A. It has always been.

    (No need for God. It’s just always existed. And someone or something that’s always existed doesn’t need a creator. It’s just always existed.)

    B. It created itself.

    (Again, no need for God. It brought itself into existence.)

    C. It was created by something or someone outside of itself, i.e., God.

    Let’s walk back through these and see which of these options is the most reasonable to believe. The first option, that the universe has always been (is eternal), has been utterly rejected by the scientific community. Why?

    The scientific evidence against an eternal universe has demolished this theory. Astronomers are pointing to things like:

    • the background radiation echo
    • the second law of thermodynamics
    • the motion of the galaxies
    • and other evidences

    …all of which have led them to conclude that the universe had a beginning.
    I am not going to discuss all of these evidences here in this article, but the consensus amongst the majority of astronomers is this:

    The universe began to exist.
    It’s not eternal.

    Stephen Hawking, the popular and immensely respected astronomer from Cambridge University, agrees that this is the consensus. He says, “Almost everyone believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning.” [Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time, The Isaac Newton Institute Series of Lectures (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), p. 20.]

    That’s interesting. This is in perfect harmony with what the Bible says (in the very first verse!)…

    Genesis 1:1
    “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”

    The Bible makes it very clear that the universe actually had a beginning, exactly like the scientific community has finally discovered–more than 3,000 years after Moses penned those words. (They would have known this a lot sooner had they taken the Bible seriously.)

    Arno Penzias, who was awarded a Nobel Prize for discovering evidence (the background radiation echo) that the universe did have a beginning, agrees that the scientific data lines right up with the Bible. He said:
    “The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted,
    had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms
    and the Bible as a whole.” –Arno Penzias

    [Interview by Malcolm Browne, “Clues to the Universe’s
    Origin Expected,” The New York Times, March 12, 1978, p. 1]
    Well, because the universe had a beginning, that rules out option A doesn’t it?—that the universe has just always been. Very well, that leaves us with two options to explain the existence of the universe. Let’s talk about option B for a moment.

    B. It created itself.
    C. It was created by God.

    This option, that the universe created itself, is fraught with problems. The idea that anything could create itself is absurd. For it would have to exist and not exist at the same time. That’s irrational. For something to create itself, it would have to be before it was. This is a violation of the most rudimentary principle of knowledge: the law of non-contradiction.

    So, to say that the universe created itself is nonsensical. Before the universe existed it would not have been around to do the creating. Right? Obviously, a non-existent universe could not have done anything! It did not exist.

    So the universe surely did not create itself. And even atheists see the problem with this second option. So where do they run? How do they explain the existence of the universe? Option number 3 (that God created the universe) scares them. So, what do they say? Well, many of them conclude like Richard Dawkins that”The universe evolved literally out of nothing.” [Richard Dawkins, The Ancestor’s Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution, (First Mariner Books, fifth edition, 2005), p. 613]
    Nothing!

    Stephen Hawking says the same thing, that the universe came from “Nothing.” [USA Today, September 2, 2010]

    Well, friends, I hope you don’t believe this. These leading atheists, considered by some to be amongst the brightest thinkers on the planet, say ‘Once there was nothing and from that nothingness sprang all the billions of galaxies, stars, planets, moons, matter, and energy in the entire universe.’ Well, I don’t buy that. I think Paul’s words summarize this kind of thinking:
    Romans 1:22
    “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”
    The thought that the universe sprang into existence from nothing is foolish. I think you would agree with me that: nothing cannot do something. Nothing cannot see, smell, act, think, let alone create something.

    Can you imagine turning on the news and hearing the newscaster say: “Nothing caught doing something on film! See the footage at eleven!”

    Why do you laugh? Because it doesn’t happen. It can’t happen. And it never has happened!
    So, there are three options for the existence of the universe…
    A. It has always been.
    B. It created itself.
    C. It was created by God.

    Options A and B can be thrown out purely on scientific and philosophical grounds. And so we conclude that option C (that God created the universe) is the most reasonable option. And I’ll continue to strengthen my case as we move along.

    SKEPTIC: “But Charlie, if the cosmos demands a creator, then who made God—if He exists?”

    ME: Nobody made God. Unlike the finite universe that demands a creator, God does not need a creator.

    SKEPTIC: Why?

    ME: Because God is eternal. Someone who has always existed does not need a creator or someone to have brought Him into existence, because He’s always been. The fact that God is eternal is something the Scriptures affirm in multiple places (Psalm 90:2, 93:2; Deut. 33:27) God is eternal. But the universe falls into an entirely different category. As the scientific discoveries have shown, it has not always existed. And anything that begins to exist, requires a cause or maker. Things don’t just pop into existence all on their own. Nothing does not produce something.

    SKEPTIC: You believe that God has just always existed?”

    ME: Yes!

    SKEPTIC: Impossible!

    ME: Well, before you scoff at the fact that God has always existed, keep this in mind: something must have always existed. Do you realize that?

    SKEPTIC: Why do you think that?

    ME: Well, think through this with me: If
    nothing cannot produce something, and yet something exists, then something or someone must have always existed. Why? In order to bring that which exists into being. Think of it this way:

    1. If there ever was a time that absolutely nothing existed, nothing would exist now.
    2. Something exists now.
    3. Therefore, there was never a time that absolutely nothing existed.

    So, we have no problem believing that God is the One who always existed. And because that is the case, the answer to the question Who made God? is no one. God is eternal and does not need a maker. The universe though is not eternal and therefore does require a maker.

    SKEPTIC: Well Charlie, you know, I just have a hard time believing in something that I can’t see—this God that you speak of.

    ME: I understand that. I struggled with that as well before the evidence compelled me to change my mind and become a Christian. So, let me help you think through this.

    When you see a painting, what proof do you need to come to the conclusion that a painter painted that painting? Well, the obvious answer is nothing besides the painting itself. The painting itself is absolute proof there was a painter. You do not need to see the painter to believe that he or she exists. The painting is all the evidence you need. The painting would not be there if the painter did not exist; and so it is with the universe and God. You do not need to see God in order to conclude He exists. The universe all on its own is compelling evidence God exists.

  11. evan goodman says:

    EVIDENCE FOR GOD

    Lecture notes by CHARLIE H. CAMPBELL
    Director of The Always Be Ready Apologetics Ministry

    THE CONDITIONS FOR LIFE

    The more scientists study the universe, the more they discover that conditions in the universe appear to have been extremely fine-tuned (designed) to permit life. Scientists call this apparent “fine-tuning” of the universe the “Anthropic Principle.”

    The word anthropic comes from the Greek word anthropos which means “human” or “man.” So the term “Anthropic Principle” is just the technical name to describe the numerous highly improbable environmental conditions that exist in the universe that make life possible.

    Numerous conditions have been identified that have to have just the right values (in other words, they need to be “tuned” to just the right degree) for any kind of conceivable physical life to exist in the universe.

    If any of these conditions were to change even a little, the universe would be hostile to life and incapable of supporting it. The anthropic principle is not something that Christian scientists have concocted. This is something that is being acknowledged by scientists of every persuasion.

    Stephen Hawking for example (a man who certainly does not consider himself a Christian) says:

    “The universe and the laws of physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could not exist: Either atoms would not be stable, or they wouldn’t combine into molecules, or the stars wouldn’t form the heavier elements, or the universe would collapse before life could develop, and so on.” [Austin American-Statesman, October 19, 1997]

    When he speaks of “40 physical qualities” that appear to have been specifically designed to permit life, he’s talking about…

    • The force of gravity (if it was much stronger everything would collapse; if it were much weaker everything would drift apart)
    • The speed of light and the mass of an electron (if the speed of light or the mass of an electron were even slightly different there would be no planet capable of supporting human life)

    • The force that binds subatomic particles (such as neutrons and protons) together within the nuclei of atoms (if the force were stronger or weaker by more than about one percent, the universe would be either all hydrogen or have no hydrogen at all)
    • The energy levels in carbon atoms (just right for life to exist; change them a little and the universe would be incapable of supporting life)

    When it comes to these kinds of conditions, Dr. Francis Collins, former head of the Human Genome Project, states that if any of these constants “was off by even one part in a million, or in some cases, by one part in a million million…there would have been no galaxy, stars, planets or people.” [August 2006 interview with Salon.com]

    Donald Page of Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Science calculated the odds against our universe randomly taking a form suitable for life as one in:

    10,000,000,000124

    One in ten billion to the 124th power! This is a number so large, it is safe to say that the universe did not come together randomly. It was created by an incredibly intelligent and powerful designer. [Ravi Zacharias, The End of Reason, p.35].

    And that’s what many cosmologists and physicists are concluding today: That something supernatural is going on behind the scenes.

    Well, this conclusion (that God may be behind it all) of course does not sit well with atheists who are committed to a godless universe. So where do they run? How do they explain the fine-tuning of the universe? They do acknowledge that what appears to be “fine tuning” exists. So what do they do with it? Well, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, and other prominent atheists seek to explain away the fine-tuning of the universe with a hypothesis straight out of science fiction called “The Multiverse.”

    The multiverse? What’s that?

    Their “multiverse” hypothesis says that there are an infinite number of universes (thus the term “multi-verse”) and that somewhere in the mix of all these universes a finely-tuned universe will appear by chance alone. And we humans just happen to live in that finely-tuned universe (So, ‘There’s no need to believe in God!’ they say. ‘This universe ended up like this by chance!’).

    Well friends, this is a desperate theory that atheists have come up with. What evidence is there for the existence of a multiverse? There is none. There is not a shred of evidence there is even one universe outside our own, let alone an infinite amount of universes.

    I find it ironic that atheists always tout their interest in observational evidence but when faced with the observational evidence of fine-tuning, they retreat to a hypothesis that has no observational evidence to support it. None! And even if their multiverse theory was correct (and there are millions of universes in addition to our own), that still does not end the debate over the existence of God, for the question would remain:

    How did those universes come into existence?
    Nothing does not produce something.

    I think the multiverse theory actually makes the atheist’s dilemma more difficult. For, if the multiverse theory were true, “nothing” not only made one universe, nothing made a lot of universes. Well, I don’t have enough faith to believe in millions of universes no one has ever seen. The incredible fine tuning in this universe—the only one we know exists—is compelling evidence for the existence of God.

  12. eva sciano says:

    EVIDENCE FOR GOD

    Lecture notes by CHARLIE H. CAMPBELL
    Director of The Always Be Ready Apologetics Ministry

    THE COMPLEXITY OF LIFE

    Let’s imagine for a few minutes that you have decided to go on a two week cruise to Tahiti, compliments of your boss. Sound nice? Well, it seemed like a good idea but unfortunately someone forgot to check the weather report and much to your horror, the largest storm the Southern Hemisphere has ever seen capsizes your cruise liner and sends you and the others out into the middle of the Pacific Ocean for a night.

    You awake to find yourself shipwrecked on an island somewhere in the South Pacific. As you walk around the island with one of the other survivors, you begin to wonder if there might be any intelligent life there on the island that may be able to help you get home. As you’re walking along the shore you spot something lying there in the sand. Upon closer examination you discover what appears to be an arrowhead.

    Question: After this initial discovery, what do you think the chances are that human life might exist on the island? Pretty good. Now, it may not be the kind of intelligent life you are hoping for. It may be a tribe of headhunters!
    Much to your surprise, the other person who survived the shipwreck with you, suggests that, “Well, let’s not get too excited about going home anytime soon. Perhaps over billions of years the wind and the waves and the rising and falling of the tides just happened to form a rock that looks like an arrowhead.”

    Finding that hard to believe, you agree to remain open-minded and continue searching. Another mile down the beach, you discover what appears to be a canoe anchored up on the shoreline. Now you’re convinced that some sort of intelligent life must exist on the island! But just in time to dampen your enthusiasm, your new friend and fellow shipwreck survivor suggests that: “Perhaps millions of years of storms and waves just shaped a pile of driftwood into what appears to be a well designed canoe-shaped boat.”

    Okay. Now, finding the statement about the canoe even harder to believe than the comments about the arrowhead, you agree to continue looking. A hundred yards down the beach you encounter what appears to be writing in the sand. The letters spell out the simple word “Welcome.” The headhunters are glad you’ve come. You look over at your new friend (almost cringing to hear his thoughts) only to hear him say, “Perhaps the wind and the waves just formed that sequence of letters.”
    Ha! We laugh at these hypothetical responses because we know that just about everyone on the face of the planet would conclude that the arrowhead, canoe, and a few letters in the sand were surely designed by some intelligent life form.
    Why? Here’s why:

    DESIGN IS NOT HARD TO RECOGNIZE.

    And everywhere we look on planet earth we find amazingly complex life forms that are millions of times more complex than arrowheads or canoes. This amazing complexity that permeates all of life is another reason why more and more scientists are concluding an intelligent designer must exist.
    Let’s consider some of the complexity we see in nature and for time’s sake let’s just limit our consideration to the human boy. It has an amazingly complex:

    • Nervous system
    • Cardiovascular system
    • Reproductive capability
    • Skeletal system
    • Muscle system
    • Digestive system
    • Ability to heal itself
    • And fight off diseases

    I find it difficult to believe that the human body could have come into existence by some mindless process, apart from an incredibly intelligent designer, even given millions of years.

    You could leave the barren side of a mountain exposed to…

    • Wind
    • Rain
    • The forces of nature
    • Chance
    • And millions of years of time

    …and you would never get a Mt. Rushmore, let alone a living, breathing human being. Why? It takes intelligence. You need intelligent intervention. (It took 400 intelligent workers fourteen years (1927-1941) to carve those four faces. And George and Abe just stare at you. They don’t talk. They don’t smile. They don’t do anything. How much more intelligence would it take to create a living breathing human being? Good question.)

    As Dr. Norman Geisler points out, it would take great intelligence to create a robot that operates like a human, and it would take even greater intelligence to create a real human being.
    No one alive today would believe that the faces of Mt. Rushmore came about by millions of years of…

    • Erosion
    • Wind
    • Rain
    • And undirected random acts.

    And yet atheists believe that real-life human beings with…

    • 206 bones
    • 640 muscles
    • and hearts that beat over 100,000 times a day

    …are the product of a mindless, random series of accidents. This is foolish.

    Not only is the body as a whole incredibly complex, the individual parts making up the body are highly complex. Scientists tell us that the human brain, weighing in with its 100 billion neurons at about three pounds, is a machine more wonderful than any devised by humans and that it holds enough information to fill some twenty million books. [Carl Sagan, Cosmos, 1985, p. 230]

    Is it possible that this “machine more wonderful than any devised by humans” came into being from nothing, by nothing, and then evolved via some mindless, random series of accidents, as evolutionists believe?

    I don’t have enough faith to believe that.

    Consider the heart. The heart, a muscle about the size of a man’s fist, contracts and forces blood through 60,000 miles of veins, arteries and capillaries in your body. Every hour it pumps about 75 gallons of blood totalling more than 50,000 gallons every month. [http://www.medicinenet.com/heart_how_the_heart_works/article.htm]

    To help you ponder how astonishing that is, consider this: the average backyard pool holds about 15,000 gallons of water. But your heart pumps more than three times that amount–– 50,000 gallons of blood––a month.

    A good question to ask atheists is: What do you think evolved first? Hearts, blood or veins?

    ATHEIST: Hearts.
    ME: All right. What did they do? What did they pump?

    ATHEIST: Maybe blood evolved first.

    ME: All right. What did it do? Where did it go? How did it get there?

    ATHEIST: Well, maybe veins evolved first.
    ME: All right. What did they do? What did they carry? What were they connected to?

    ATHEIST: I don’t like this question.

    Yes, this is a dilemma for the atheist.

    Consider the human eye. The eye is composed of more than two million working parts. [J.P. Moreland and Tim Muehlhoff, The God Conversation, p. 1]

    The eye is a ball with:

    • A lens on one side
    • A light sensitive retina made up of rods and cones inside the other
    • The lens itself has a sturdy protective covering called a cornea
    • and sits over an iris designed to protect the eye from excessive light
    • The eye contains an amazing watery substance that is replaced every four hours
    • Tear glands continuously flush the outside clean
    • Tears bring oxygen to the cornea, carry chemicals that kill bacteria and proteins to coat the eyes, wash the eyes, and move debris toward a lower drain, or lacrimal duct
    • An eyelid sweeps secretions over the cornea to keep it moist
    • Eyelashes protect it from dust
    • And extraordinarily fine-tuned muscles are attached to the eye that move the eye and aid its ability to quickly focus on objects [Adapted from Hank Hanegraaff, Fatal Flaws, 2003, p. 43 and Geoffrey Simmons, What Darwin Didn’t Know, p. 283]

    The eye is far more complex and advanced than the world’s greatest auto-focus camera that took researchers and developers numerous years and millions of dollars to design and create. Did this amazing piece of complex machinery (the eye) come together by some mindless process and random series of accidents? Atheists muster up the faith to answer “Yes” to that question. I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist.

    Even the most well known Darwinist of all time had difficulties believing that the eye came into being by blind forces. Who am I talking about? Charles Darwin. Darwin himself found it hard to accept the notion that the eye could be the product of evolution. Before his death, he said, “The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder.” [Letter to Asa Gray, 8 or 9 February 1860. In F. Burkhardt and S. Smith (eds.), The Correspondence of Charles Darwin 1860 (1993), Vol. 8, p. 75.]

    In his famous book, On The Origin of Species (1859), Charles Darwin said:

    “To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable [matchless] contrivances [plans] for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.” [p. 217]

    Not only does the body as a whole, the brain and the eye point to an intelligent designer, so does something as small as a living cell. A cell is considered the smallest unit of matter alive and measures less than a thousandth of an inch in diameter. In Darwin’s day, cells appeared to be little unsophisticated globs of jello, mysterious little parts of life that no one could see into.

    But now that we have the ability to peer into the cell with electron microscopes, we see that life down at the cellular level is immeasurably more complex than Darwin ever dreamed.

    Speaking about the cell, Dr. Walter Bradley, a respected scientist and author of The Mystery of Life’s Origin, says: “A one-cell organism is more complicated than anything we’ve been able to recreate through supercomputers.” [Interview with Lee Strobel, The Case for Faith, 2000, p. 98]

    According to Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling, widely regarded as the greatest chemist of the twentieth century, just one living cell in the human body is, “more complex than New York city.” [Cited in Dave Hunt, In Defense of the Faith, 1996, p. 22].
    I don’t know if you have been to New York city, but it is one complex place. With eight million residents, it is the largest, and probably most complex city in the United States. Imagine for a moment how complex New York City is:

    • Hundreds of skyscrapers
    • Hundreds of thousands of residences and offices
    • Subways zipping around under ground
    • Hundreds of taxi cabs racing around
    • Planes landing at all hours of the day
    • Ships pulling in and out

    Now imagine packing that kind of complexity into a single cell inside your body. And that is just the beginning. Your body is comprised of thousands of different kinds of cells totaling more than: 100,000,000,000,000 (100 trillion) in number. And your body makes millions of new cells every second and they all work together!

    How do they all work together? How do they know what to do, where to go, what organs to produce, what color hair to produce, what to do when you cut yourself? Ahhh, it’s the DNA in the cell. The six feet of coiled up DNA in every one of your cells contains a staggering amount of detailed complex information and instruction that tells each cell how to function, where to go, what to do.

    Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft, said this about DNA: “DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.” [Bill Gates, The Road Ahead, 1996, p. 228]
    Where did this staggering amount of complex detailed information in a cell’s DNA (that is far more advanced than any software Microsoft ever created) come from? Computer programs do not write themselves. A programmer is always involved. Even if you provide lots of time, a computer program cannot write itself. (Someone shouted out to me once, “I get viruses all the time when I leave my computer on.” Well, even computer viruses are designed by someone–usually a young male with too much time on his hands and who still lives with his mom…). The same is true with the complex information stored in DNA. Where did it come from?
    SKEPTIC: Non-directed natural causes?

    I don’t think so. Francis Crick, one of the two scientists who discovered DNA, having observed the complexity of DNA, estimated that the odds that intelligent life exists on the Earth as the result of non-directed processes to be around 1:102,000,000,000 (That’s one in ten to the two billionth power.) [Cited in Gary Habermas and Mike Licona, The Case for the Resurrection, 2004, p. 179]

    Now of course, you’re free to believe that it all came together via non-directed natural causes. I wouldn’t stack up my eternity against such overwhelming odds. I think it far wiser to rule out non-directed processes and draw the conclusion that Antony Flew drew.

    Up until 2004, Antony Flew was widely considered the world’s most influential atheistic philosopher, author and debater. In December of 2004 news came out that Flew had abandoned his atheism after concluding that God must exist. What changed his mind?

    Antony Flew said:
    “I now believe there is a God…I now think it [the evidence] does point to a creative Intelligence almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together.” [Antony Flew, There Is A God, How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, 2007, p. 75]

    What an astounding turn around and admission! The title of Antony Flew’s last book? There Is A God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind

    Antony Flew is not alone in abandoning atheism and naturalistic explanations for the complexity of life.

    Hundreds of Ph.D. scientists, from prestigious universities like…

    • Oxford
    • Cambridge
    • Yale
    • Princeton
    • Stanford
    • M.I.T.
    • Harvard
    • U.C.L.A.
    • U.C. Berkeley

    …are expressing their skepticism of Darwinism today. You can see their names and the institutions they are from at: DissentFromDarwin.org

    The next time a professor makes your son or daughter feel like a fool for questioning Darwinism, you might go to this website and print out the list of more than 800 Ph.D. scientists and give it to him and assure him that he is standing in good company. You might also remind him or her that many of the most brilliant scientists to have ever lived, men like Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Blaise Pascal, and Albert Einstein all believed in God’s existence.

    If arrowheads, canoes and simple messages in the sand point to an intelligent designer, even more we are justified in believing that the complexity in living organisms points to an intelligent designer.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s