First, let’s start with some science:

If it could be said that the Law of Biogenesis contradicts the scientific evidence, it would be false. However, such is not the case. It is in keeping with all the evidence. Consider, though, that if one rejects the Creation model, the Law of Biogenesis must be false, since without the Creation model, life had to come from non-life—in violation of that law. The atheistic evolutionist’s conclusion: all of the scientific evidence over the centuries which has proven, according to the evolutionists themselves, the impossibility of abiogenesis, should be discarded in support of a theory which has no scientific support.

Evolution is not in harmony with true science. Creation, however, is. If abiogenesis is not true according to science, special creation, which does not contradict the Law of Biogenesis, must, of necessity, be true. Science, once again, is the friend of God and His Word and the enemy of the atheist.

Life cannot come from non-life in the natural world.  Nothing living has ever been observed to be brought about by non-life.  This is a fact Louis Pasteur declared and still holds true today, despite attempts to the contrary.  The closest scientists have come to replicating life through their intelligent designs produces building blocks of sort, but not actual life.

This means, if all natural laws are followed, there can be no life.  Since staying within the system of the natural world would mean there is nothing living, and we observe life be the case, we are left with two possibilities.  The first is a philosophical one: maybe life and existence are not the same thing, and we can exist and be without actually living.  In other words, life is merely an illusion and we are not in the universe, in the environment we perceive to be in.  If this is true, we are grossly deceived about what is true and what is not true, and we have much to figure out–and science is no friend.  We must start from ground zero and reason–and reason alone–will show the true nature of things.

The second possibility is that there is something outside the system we perceive.  While the natural world shows that life cannot come from non-life, and we see life, we must conclude that something (or some force) exists outside what we call “nature.”  Life comes from the thing or this force outside of the system.  Not only must this thing be outside the system, but it must be able to alter the system of the natural world–thus it must be above nature.  We call this thing which has its being above nature “supernatural.”  Whatever this thing is, it exists outside nature and can affect nature at least enough so that it can alter or suspend natural laws that we have discovered through scientific inquiry.

A supernatural thing that is capable of altering the natural universe fits with the scientific facts we see today, not because this thing obeys the laws but rather because it can alter/suspend the laws.  The laws of biology and physics cannot change themselves or stop–they are mindless and blind.  The only way for any scientific laws to be ignorable would be if something outside the scientific system ignored them.  Since life is what we see today and life can only come from life, evolutionists are left in the bind of saying the law can be violated (and thus conceding any arguments over science since their opponents can say, “Well, this law was just violated for this instance”) or by allowing for the supernatural to intervene with the natural and produce the original life which leads to all other life.

There is no such thing as the science of origins, since origins have yet to be replicated, and since science says origins cannot be replicated through experiments.  Creation is not more “scientific” than spontaneous generation.  However, it does fit better with what we know from science, and that is the point being made here.  There had to be something that exists outside the system.

Advertisements

Here’s some great logic for you:

1. If there are frogs, they are purple.
2. If a purple frog exists, no ribbetting will be heard.
3. Ribbetting is heard.
4. No purple frog exists (from 2 and 3).
5. Hence, there are no frogs (from 1 and 4).

Thus by the Argument from Ranine Hiddenness we are able to conclude that no frog exists, even though our conclusion flies in the face of the observable fact that something out there – though clearly not a frog! – can be heard going ribbet, ribbet. And frankly, I think I’d be more impressed with the intellectual prowess exhibited by the average frog’s ribbets than by the cretins who produced this illogical drivel.

This is an accurate, parallel syllogism for the atheist’s Divine Hiddenness argument.

From CatholicAnswers.com:

the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

If this condition is to be met, no nation could ever defend itself properly.  History shows that rolling over with little resistance–generally, though not always–will garner mercy and goodwill from the aggressor.  However, defense and war against the aggressor means violence which intensifies and escalates the longer the conflicted is protracted.  Rules of engagement get ignored, “human rights” become less important to each side, and the body count keeps rising.

War is hell.  Anytime a people decide to go to war they decide to multiply violence and death–that’s the only effective way to fight a war.  There is no such thing as a nice war, a pleasant war.  War is no time for picnics.  War is gruesome and bloody and produces evils and disorders even greater than the real prospective evil imposed by an aggressor.

No war is worth fighting if a nation is unwilling to escalate conflict to the point of inflicting destruction, pain, and death greater than what could possibly be inflicted upon itself.  That’s why this doctrine fails–in theory and, more importantly, in practice.

This is the purpose of war.

Makes sense?Christians have been taking the brunt end of atheist’s mockery for too long, thinking that long-winded thoughtful arguments in defense of Christianity will somehow win the argument in today’s soundbite culture.

People today simply do not have the patience to hear out somewhat advanced arguments in response to juvenile, immature jeers.  People would rather laugh than think.  People would rather feel a certain way about something rather than think about it.

The New Atheism does not present true arguments.  It presents irrational, toddler-like hatred for authority disguised in the wording of academia.  New atheism creates caricatures of Christianity because of how unsophisticated in thinking New Atheists are.  The big words they use obscure this fact.

Rather than respond to the irrational with the rational, rather than respond to emotions with reason, Christians ought to respond in kind–not “kindly,” which is a code word for “be nice.”  After all, why would anyone respond to a child’s temper tantrum by trying to reason with the child?

A Commercial Worth Watching

February 6, 2012

I know the web is abuzz about the awful/awesome/dull/funny Super Bowl commercials, but I think the most interesting one was the commercial Tony Dungy recommended as a “pro-family halftime alternative.”  Instead of promoting consumerism and hedonism, it promoted concepts such as service, love, sacrifice, and duty.

There is a difference between lip-service and life-service.  God knows the difference.  Don’t kid yourself.

Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.  (James 1:27)

It’s one thing to talk, it’s another thing to do.  The family crisis Tony speaks of is real and pressing.  Kudos for him calling people to help those in need.

We need more commercials bringing us face to face with loving duty instead of unchecked desire.

Alpha’s Letter

January 23, 2012

From In Mala Fide, Alpha:

Do you know what the problem with America is?

Our politicians looked at Kim Jong Il while he was alive, and saw that everywhere he went, no matter what, every night of his life he had a lobster flown to him for dinner.

Every night.

He stood on the broken backs of his people, he forced them to smile and made them enjoy giving him their money.

Our politicians watched him live like a god while his people resorted to cannibalism or starved to death in the streets.

Instead of feeling pity for those poor, oppressed, and suffering people, instead of feeling disgust an what an animal Kim Jong Il was, instead of being outraged that human life could be mistreated in such a way, instead of feeling hatred for anyone who could commit such evils, do you know what they felt?

Envy.

They saw a man who lived like a god on Earth, and they WANTED IT. They Coveted his lifestyle. The wealth he lived in, the power he commanded! How great it must be to live like that, to literally be worshipped! How great it will be to stand in the place of the Most High, to take His name as Mine and have that Power! Don’t you see? They will stop at nothing, and they will not rest, until they have that same power.

We are lead by corrupt and evil men, men who want nothing but their own gain. Who want nothing but to see the measure of their own power and wealth increased. We are lead by Satan, and we allow him to direct our paths to lead us unto our destruction, that he may proclaim himself king — though it will be king of the damned.

Sadly, I believe this is a remarkably accurate assessment.  They use their power to legitimize power, to gain power, to continually grasp at power.  Even many of the Tea Partiers in Congress fell in line with Republican demands, suddenly “seeing the light” once power was in their hands.

Power corrupts.

It’s angering to see people continue to vote for leaders who are demonstrably corrupt and power-hungry.  The tried-and-failed solution to this is to elect leaders who have high ideals and good character.  It’s sad to see people vote for those types of leaders only to see them quickly corrupted by the power.  Though strong, they were not strong enough to withstand the demon of power.

A better solution would be to limit the power the leaders can hold.  Don’t give the leaders more power to consolidate.  Take back power.  Don’t rest until the power lies with the people, not the leaders.

Smooth-talking=cunning

January 19, 2012

“And all knowledge, when separated from justice and virtue, is seen to be cunning and not wisdom; wherefore make this your first and last and constant and all-absorbing aim, to exceed, if possible, not only us but all your ancestors in virtue….”

Plato, Menexenus