Wednesday, December 12, 2018

William Lane Craig and Other Genesis Deniers

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Wisdom itself beings with God (Prov. 1:7), and the Bible is to be the foundation for the Christian's thinking in all areas (Psalm 119:105, 2 Tim. 3:16-17, Rom. 11:33). As we have seen in several articles here and on other biblical creation sites, Genesis is the source of all major Christian doctrines. Some professing Christians as well as atheists, old earth proponents, and other anti-creationists reject the authority of the Bible and attack not only the truth of God's Word, but also the people who take their stand on it.


There are people who reject the authority and plain teaching of God's Word, especially about creation. William Lane Craig is great at defeating atheism, but he mocks biblical creationists.
Credit: Pixabay / Jeff Jacobs

The Wisdom of the World

The Christian's faith is established in God, not in the ever-changing whims of man-made science philosophies. For example, some have joyously stated that proof of the Big Bang validates the Bible, only to have the evidence pulled out from under them. If someone's faith is based entirely on secular interpretations of science, they have little to support their beliefs when scientists change their minds. The wisdom and ways of God are far above those of man (1 Cor. 1:18-25, 2 Cor. 10:4-5 ESV).

The first line of offense for anti-creationists is to attack the person with ad hominem remarks and ridicule. If you read comments on posts, forums, and so forth, the hatred is palpable. They also blatantly misrepresent Scripture and creationists. Although denying the Bible, some (like this tinhorn) pretend to understand it and use it to demonize creationists. I do not say this lightly: such people are evil, seeking to destroy under the pretense of defending "science". Only their narrow, rigid views are to be tolerated, and the views of people who disagree are to be silenced. This silencing is often attempted through the aforementioned ridicule and misrepresentation.


Unequally Yoked

A frequent admonition for Christians who are considering marrying unbelievers is found in 2 Corinthians 6:14. The most common translation is that we are not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers, and some render it mismatched, bound together or similar expressions. It is also used in counsel regarding business partnerships with unbelievers. Christians should also avoid other alliances with those in rebellion against God.

Some professing Christians are willing to ride with atheists for the anti-creationist brand and ridicule not only biblical creation science, but the people who proclaim it as well — and many do it with fervor, giving aid and comfort to enemies of God. I reckon John 13:35 has been blotted out of their Bibles, as well as other verses about showing love for Christian brethren and for God's Word. This makes me wonder if they've actually read the New Testament.

I have seen some misotheists say they can accept some "moderate" Christians as long as they reject recent creation and the Genesis Flood. As regular readers have seen or a search of the site will reveal, denying the Flood is required by old earth and theistic evolutionary views but essentially calls Jesus, Peter, Paul and other who affirm the Flood to be liars! That is not "moderate" by any means.

Teaming up with unbelievers to ridicule believers really takes the rag off the bush. They are elevating atheistic interpretations of science to the magisterial position above God's Word as the final authority, which opposes the Bible that they claim to believe. It's who they are and what they do. God meant what he said about creation, and he said it plainly, old son.

People in rebellion against God hate Bible-believing Christians because rebels hate Jesus (John 15:18, 2 Tim. 3:12). Why does the world hate him? Because he testifies of it (John 7:6-7) and people will stand before him at the Judgement (Jude 1:14-15, Rev. 20:12-13). If you profess to follow Christ but join with unbelievers, I strongly recommend that you examine yourself to see if you are indeed in the faith. Also, are these folks with such venomous ejecta the kind you really want to associate with?

William Lane Craig Denies Recent Creation

Dr. Craig has openly mocked biblical creationists. He does not perform proper exegesis, preferring philosophy to biblical authority. Yes, he devastates atheism and affirms theism, but incompletely because he does not present the true God of the Bible.

Now I'm going to recommend an article by Dr. Jason Lisle. He expands on some of the things I mentioned earlier, and he shows how Craig's thinking is confused and is loaded with bad theology.
Our critic this week is Dr. William Lane Craig, a philosophy professor and Christian apologist.  Although Craig defends Scripture in some areas, he adamantly denies literal (6-day) creation in favor of the big bang and secular timescale.  Last week [November 18, 2018] he responded to a question posted on his blog.  His response seems to indicate a lack of faith in the clarity and authority of God’s Word, and a misplaced confidence in the opinions of fallible men.  This highlights the difference between classical/evidential apologists like Craig, and those apologists who embrace biblical authority as the ultimate presupposition by which all experience is made intelligible.
To read the rest of this important article, click on "William Lane Craig on Genesis". Also, I recommend a video message by Adrian Rogers, "Your Friendly Enemy". Edit: I added a very short video below, just above the music.



Tuesday, December 4, 2018

The Reliability of the Chronicle of Adam

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

It is easy to wonder about the accuracy and reliability of biblical history, what with the events happening such a long time ago and all. People disagree about events in much more recent history such as the World War II, for example. How do we know that the oldest narrative it correct?


People may wonder how Moses knew the events of Genesis so he could write them accurately.
Credit: RGBStock / Billy Frank Alexander
Yes, I'll allow that it's been a mighty long time between then and now, and things are very different. People may think of those games where one person tells another down the line, then it turns out that the last person hears something very different from the original story. Well, isn't that how we received the biblical texts? They had oral transmission until someone got the notion to invent writing, so mayhaps the Eden account was a bit fouled up before Moses commenced to setting down the events? That's a fair question.

Hold up a minute there, Hoss. 2 Timothy 3:16 NIV tells us that Scripture is God-breathed. (Many translations are less direct, using the word inspired.) Even if writing did not exist until long after the events of Genesis, we can still trust God that God has given us the truth.

The idea that writing did not exist until after humans had existed for a few hundred thousand years is based on Darwinist presuppositions. Even people who reject evolution may also accept the notion that there was no writing from the beginning.

Biblical creationists have made a compelling case that writing (as well as language and intelligence) existed from the beginning — Adam and Eve were created with everything they needed to survive in the newly-minted world, including the ability to write.  Dr. Ben Scripture had a podcast where he affirmed that he also believes that Adam (and later authors) write some materials which were preserved until Moses edited them. He also had some other interesting things to say. I hope you'll spare 13-1/2 minutes and give it a listen.



Tuesday, November 27, 2018

Design and Illusion

One of the most basic appeals to intelligent design is to say that a building needs a builder, a painting needs a painter, music needs a composer, and the far more complex things of life itself need a Master Designer. A bit simplistic, I'll allow, but it does make a point. Even children can see something and will intrinsically ask, "Who made that?" Atheists and evolutionists tell us we're nuts, that things only appear to be designed; things that we perceive as having patterns are nothing more than apophenia. This veiled ad hominem is actually a statement of metaphysics based on atheistic presuppositions; it has nothing to do with science.


Atheists and evolutionists claim that there is no design in nature, it only looks that way. Then they appeal to invisible imaginary agencies of evolution while implying that we are insane.
Credit: Unsplash / rawpixel
Atheists like Michael Shermer tell us that we evolved that ability to avoid predators. How he "knows" this is a mystery. People like this who say that there is no intelligent agency designing life are suppressing the truth about the Creator they know exists (Rom. 1:18-23). More than that, they appeal to invisible imaginary agencies that guide particles-to-pretender evolution. Mere assertions from misotheists who are Making Things Up™ are not exactly factual. Not by a long shot. It takes willful ignorance to deny the obvious specified complexities in organisms.
Life looks like it was designed. Even Richard Dawkins admits it: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”1 It seems biology cannot do without design language. However, evolutionists say life is a result of mindless processes, not design. So, if life is not designed, why does it fool us so readily into thinking it is? Some evolutionists try to explain why the appearance of design in biology is convincing though misleading—with a phenomenon called ‘apophenia’. Apophenia is ‘seeing meaningful connections in random phenomena’. Put simply, the idea is that the appearance of design in biology is just a trick of the way our brains work.
To read the rest, click on "Design: just a trick of the mind?"


Tuesday, November 20, 2018

Matt Walsh and the Age of the Earth

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
Edited about 22 hours after initial posting.

Matt Walsh has a strong pro-life view, stands up for politically conservative values, and has an excellent sense of humor. I have occasionally linked to him, and his material spurred me to do some writing (such as "It's Not My Fault!"). Unfortunately, he is bothersome to many of his supporters when he discusses theology. What really took the rag off the bush is when he decided to slap leather with biblical creation science.


Matt Walsh has been attacking creation science, but does not use logic in his reactions.
Credit: Freeimages / Robb Kiser
Matt seems like the kind of guy that I could hang out with, and we could have some interesting discussions. Unfortunately, he is a staunch defender of Roman Catholicism and has weak theological foundations. When he threw down on creation science, I posted a couple of articles at The Question Evolution Project. The first one was by Peter Heck, "Why Matt Walsh is Dangerously Wrong About Genesis". Later, I posted an article by Paul Price at Creation Ministries International, "Apologist Matt Walsh makes a seriously uninformed attack on biblical creationism". 

Later, I did not read an article by Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis, but still attempted to engage Walsh (again) on Twitter:


Walsh is upset, and his bad reasoning and personal attacks have been exposed.
Click for larger
For some reason, he really got upset about the Ken Ham response and made a video. Interesting that he ignored other articles refuting his positions. Regular readers know that creationists encourage critical thinking, and I encourage people to develop skills at spotting informal logical fallacies. Walsh reacted in the same way as atheists, liberal Christians, and other anti-creationists when dealing with biblical creation science. He used prejudicial conjecture (using words without knowledge because he did not research the subject), ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments, and more. He also called Ham a liar. 

If you call someone a liar but do not show valid reasons for the accusation, you are the liar, old son. 

Such attitudes and actions are like those of a certain misotheist who hates Ken with a passion, and assumes Ham is lying. Evidence? In his mind, Ken Ham is a liar and the misotheist is right because he hates Ken (makes perfect sense). His proof is by using the fallacy of repeated assertion, but all he does is display his bigotry. I doubt that Walsh would be interested in the support of someone who called God a liar and is logic impaired. By the way, he also ignored the other creationist articles refuting Matt, but seems to seek relevance by attacking Ham. In fact, Walsh called Ham a liar and demanded an apology for things that were never said, and Walsh owes Ham an apology!

It is interesting that Matt Walsh acts just like Bill Nye in many ways. Both have singled out Ken Ham, as if he was the only creationist out there, and act like he is leading an anti-science cult. In fact, there are thousands who are also riding for the creation brand. Many times, creation science has caused secular scientists to realize that their deep time and evolutionary presuppositions are loaded with error. F'rinstance, creationist research on the human-chimp DNA fiasco brought down a long-standing evolutionary falsehood.

Whether in debates or criticism, it is essential to do some reading on the subjects under discussion and to avoid misrepresenting the other side. Walsh, Nye, and that other guy need to learn that attacking the person does not prove that their own positions are correct, you savvy?

We can pray that these folks have their eyes opened by the Holy Spirit, that they humble themselves, and repent. Until then, we can use their attacks for instruction and to warn others about how rejecting God's Word affects the mind. As creationists, we not only emphasize the foundational aspect of Scripture beginning with the very first verse, but also its authority as well. 

Now I'm going to bring you to the most recent response to Matt Walsh by Ken Ham and others at Answers in Genesis. To read it an watch the video, click on "Responding to Matt Walsh on Young-Earth Creation".



Wednesday, November 14, 2018

The Length of the Seventh Day

People riding for the Long Ages brand will tell you that an old earth was accepted by people until young earth creationists rode into down. That is the opposite of the truth. People accepted recent creation until Christians and Jews began compromising with secular science. One bit of trickery that these four-flushers use is to say that the seventh day of creation week is not an actual day.


Some professing Christians who compromise with long ages claim that the seventh day of creation week is not an actual day. This requires eisegesis, and does violence to other areas of Scripture.
Credit: Pixabay / Kai Kalhh
As to why some professing Christians want to cede to secularists and insist that Earth is billions of years, I suspect it's because they want to look intelligent in the eyes of secularists. The only way to get millions or billions of years out of the Bible is to shove them in there first and commence to saying, "Lookie what I found!" Not hardly! This effort to change the obvious meaning of the seventh day requires massive eisegesis and ripping verses out of context (while ignoring others altogether), but doing so also does damage to other areas of Scripture.
It should be noted that God is not still working on the seventh day and that he had finished working the prior day. The seventh day was not a day of creation but a day of rest (Genesis 2:3). Thus God had finished (kala’) all his work, referring to everything in heaven and earth being completed. The words of Genesis 2:1 introduce the completion of God’s creation. The verbs “finished,” “rested,” and “blessed” indicate the uniqueness of this day. The fact that day seven, like the other days, is numbered is further evidence that it is a day of 24 hours (Genesis 2:2–3).
The interpretation that day seven is not a 24-hour day because it lacks “evening and morning” misunderstands the use of this phrase throughout the creation week. Notice that in each of the first six days there is a structure, which is not mentioned on the seventh day, to shape each of the days:
To read the entire article, click on "Is the Seventh Day 24-Hours Long?"


Thursday, November 8, 2018

Gungor, Apostasy, and Bad Foundations

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

One of the most important aspects of the Christian life is to have a strong foundation. As Christians, we are supposed to rely on the Word of God in all matters of our faith (2 Peter 1:19-21, 2 Tim. 3:16-17, Luke 6:47-48). The source of all major Christian doctrines can be found in Genesis. When people build their faith on fun things, liberal theology, emotionalism, personal experiences , and other things instead of Scripture, the results are disastrous. Take a warning from Gungor.


Gungor did not have a solid foundation, which all Christians must have.
Credit: Unsplash / Dominik Scythe
Michael and Lisa Gungor, who performed and recorded as Gungor, were popular in Christian music circles for a while. Michael got on the prod and complained about creation, the Flood, and Genesis. Let me plagiarize a section of my article a bit:
Christian and musician Michael Gungor was in the midst of controversy because of his statements rejecting literal creation. Guess who likes him? Biologos!  Also, this venomous TE also used the Gungor controversy for his own anti-creationist attacks (note the comments from atheists as well). . . . After denying the foundation for the gospel in Genesis, Gungor has progressed to denying the gospel message itself by ridiculing substitutionary atonement and calling it "murder". I wouldn't be at all surprised if Gungor declares himself an atheist.
I don't rightly recollect when this happened, but one bitter apostate was happy about Gungor's attitude and wanted to encourage him. People who reject the truth are happy when others do so. This brings Romans 1:32 to mind.

In the above quote, I said I wouldn't be surprised if he became an atheist. Well, Michael did become an atheist for a year. Is he an atheist now? According to Twitter, he is a "mystic".


Click for larger
Although I saw some atheists happy that he has renounced Christianity, it appears that he does not want to be numbered among them.

Click for larger
Since his strange (possibly pantheistic) belief is "fluid", who knows where he and his wife will end up.

Despite the claims of some professing atheists and tinhorn apostates, there is no such thing as a former Christian. Sure, people have doubts and get confused on some things. To reject Jesus and the Bible after being transformed and adopted (2 Cor. 5:17, Gal. 4:4-7, John 3:3) and become a former Christian is a theological impossibility. Like a song says, you can't lose what you didn't have, and as the Bible says, people who left were never Christians (1 John 2:19).

Now I would like to turn you over to Wretched Radio for more information and discussion. It is the first segment, then a break of about three minutes, followed by a little bit more. The next segment is appropriate for this situation as well if you have a notion to keep listening. To hear online or download, click on this link.


Monday, October 29, 2018

Evolutionism and Earth Goddess Worship

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Evolution is not simply a biological hypothesis, but is actually an ancient pagan belief presented as science. Indeed, when the Apostle Paul was debating with philosophers in Acts 17:16-34, those Epicureans in Acts 18:18 were pagan evolutionists. If you commence to doing some reference digging, you will find that evolutionary beliefs can be seen in ancient Hindu beliefs. Did you ever notice that much of paganism is based on goddess worship?


The "Gaia Hypothesis 2.0" is an even more direct love of paganism presented as 'science.
Gaea (another spelling of Gaia) by Anselm Feuerbach, 1875
You hear the expression "Mother Earth", right? People usually who use the term are generally ignorant of its pagan origins and associations. Same as referring to Earth as Terra (standing on terra firma, the earth), which is the Roman counterpart for the Greek Gaia (or Gaea). The enviornmental movement is, at its core, essentially based on evolution and the rejection of our Creator.

While there are good points in the environmental movement, some of the more extreme environmentalists are into nature worship. Fits right in with the pagan "earth is our mother" religion. The ecosexual movement strikes this child as downright nutty, but the most dangerous aspect is the eco-war on humans.

While true evolutionism requires purposelessness, Papa Darwin began giving evolution through natural selection a personality and advancing pantheism. Man created the false goddess of evolution in his image. The "Gaia Hypothesis" was advanced a few decades ago, but despite the cognitive dissonance of promoting blind chance and randomness versus evolution as a guiding force, pantheism has been waiting in the wings. After all, the increasingly worthless Nobel Prize was awarded for a self-contradictory, self-refuting premise in evolutionism.

Some evolutionist sidewinders are being more blatant in their efforts to deny God by passing off Earth-Terra-Gaia as a living unit. All of evolution is to work together to this point, and boy howdy, you don't want to get Gaia angry. You won't like her when she's angry. We were told this would happen in Romans 1:18-23. If you study on it a while, you may notice something. With the increasing wickedness in the world and hostility of atheopaths toward God (and especially toward the foundations of the gospel in biblical creation), this should not come as much of a surprise.
“The Gaia hypothesis—first articulated by James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis in the 1970s—holds that Earth’s physical and biological processes are inextricably connected to form a self-regulating, essentially sentient, system.” Lovelock named his theory after the mythological goddess—venerated as the personification of Earth. His theory was meant to tie together several biological phenomena, particularly the tight-knit cooperation between living organisms, life’s resilience in the face of catastrophic events, and the close association between the organic and inorganic realms. 
All of these observations could be seen as working together with such purposefulness that one explanation for life’s origination is the tremendous wisdom and power of God. In contrast, Lovelock hypothesized that the organic and inorganic components of Earth evolved together so tightly that everything on Earth somehow became melded into a single, self-organizing system that seems to mystically exercise an intrinsic agency. This has led some researchers to ask, “Is Earth really a sort of giant living organism as the Gaia hypothesis predicts?”
To read the entire article from the beginning, click on "Evolutionists Sense Life's Design and Deify Nature".