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.