Biblical Creation and Evangelism

Something that this child learned several years ago is the importance of worldviews, including how they are made and the way they impact our lives. I bring these things up every once in a while because they are crucial, especially for Christians. Many professing Christians do not know what and why  they believe things, and are essentially heretics. They are riding to perdition in a handcar. We must not only make sure of our salvation , but have a proper worldview and submit to the authority of God's Word. Spectacles by kkiser at FreeImages Everyone has a worldview. It's how we interpret reality and respond to life. People may not know that word, and I doubt that they have analyzed the components and developed their own. Worldviews are mostly built on our presuppositions — those things we take as basic truths, though they are not tested or proven true. For more about this, see " What’s Your Worldview? " Unfortunately, many Christians are into tribalism, a kind of &quo

Edited 5 December 2021  To be a Bible-believing Christian (as opposed to a "cultural" or in name only) is not easy. It may seem tempting to put our beliefs out to pasture and embrace the laziness of atheism. We can sit back and say, "I lack belief", and demand proof for everything a Christian says, only to reject anything that does not meet our subjective criteria. Very lazy. Very selfish. But for a Christian, it means denying our very nature — and denying what we know is true. Unknown source image derivative via FotoSketcher and PhotoFunia A Christian is born from above (1 Peter 1:3, John 3:3) and a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17). To act in such a way means denying our very nature and rejecting what we know is true. Atheistic philosophies and excuse-making are ongoing. Just watch when a Christian wants to share evidence and have a discussion: atheists keep dodging and changing the subject, as well as attacking God and people. It's also a safe  religion as well as

There is a pair of verses that may perplex Christians at first glance, and scoffers call it biblical contradiction. This is Proverbs 26:4-5. The claim that they are a contradiction is easily dismissed, but the question about not answering a fool according to his folly, followed by answering, can be clarified. It is also a powerful method for defending and presenting the faith. Originally, this now-public domain image by Sidney Paget was used to illustrate the 1903 Sherlock Holmes story " The Empty House " The Bible makes it clear that God calls unbelievers fools . That's not God being on the prod and calling them stupid, but it is deeper than that because it is about character, not intelligence (although some exhibit a lack of intelligence). Do a Bible search with theWord , other software, or online and look for fool , foolish , and similar words. It's not gratuitous abuse. I can't think of a good way to open a discussion by telling someone that he or she is a foo

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen This article has several related sources that refer to the movie The Matrix , which has made its mark on modern culture. It added to discussions about living in a computer simulation , and the red pill/blue pill concepts have been quite interesting. The popular "What if I told you...?" line in the "memes" was not used in the move. In a previous article, I wrote about how narcissists, sociopaths, narcissistic atheopaths, and the like manipulate other people for their own purposes . This is somewhat related because many are attempting to create their own reality. One of my references was the YouTube channel of Matt Cross and "Alpha Male Secrets". While most of his content about how to get the girls and be the most interesting man in the room have no appeal to me (Christians should sanctify Jesus as Lord in their hearts and seek to please him more than anyone else), Matt has some interesting things to consider. In this video, he discuss

One of the purposes of presuppositional apologetics is to prompt people to consider their own worldviews and assumptions. Angry misotheists have told me that creationists are lying about evolution, so I ask them if that was true, what would be wrong with it? Original image source: Unsplash / Jared Rice Responses to questions like that invariably involve changing the subject and attacking me, distraction, circular reasoning, or even outright refusal to answer the question. Evolution is a cornerstone for atheism, so if we were lying, we would be doing that with the view that it brings us happiness and helps our survivability. Also seen are comments on posts that show scientific geological reasons to believe in the Genesis Flood, but atheopaths refuse to actually read the material and ridicule biblical creationists. In essence, we're wrong because atheism.  This is based on hardcore presuppositions of deep time and naturalism. As Dr. Greg Bahnsen, Dr. Jason Lisle, and others have stat

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  Christians are supposed to be ready to give reasons for the hope that is in us, and many feel they are witnessing for the faith in various online forums. However, one has to discern when time is being wasted. Made at Pablo , quote source is here As I have stated several times in the past, the word  debate  is used very loosely. Nowadays it can mean a screaming match, a structured exchange of points and rebuttals, an exchange of comments in various online forums, and all sorts of things. Let's consider internet activity. Minerals-to-mocker evolution is a cornerstone of atheism and for other rejections of the authority of God's Word. Although what is presented as scientific evidence is based on faith, assumptions, redefining words, circular reasoning, and poor research, evolutionists prefer to defend it no matter how foolish it looks. That is because admitting that evidence supports the Bible is infandous. Readers of my other sites may recall that I have d

Occasionally, apologists encounter discussions that all of reality is imaginary, as envisioned in several science fiction stories. (In one,our reality was the result of another being's dream, and it was waking up. They had to lull it back to sleep.) Sometimes the s elf-refuting Boltzmann Brains thought experiment is used. Another concept is drawn from The Matrix . How do we experience reality? Credit: FreeDigitalImages / Stuart Miles Presuppositional apologists will often ask unbelievers how they know what is real, and how they can account for their epistemology ( the study of knowledge ). How can we know that what we perceive through our senses is real or are we in a Matrix-like reality? Atheists appeal to their senses, but even without those imposed Matrix-illusion scenarios, this is not reliable as a universal principle. For example, someone with a mental illness or other altered state of consciousness may "see" and "experience" things that do not act

When engaging your typical internet village atheist, the Christian apologist seldom encounters rational discussion. To use a common expression, I have found that these professing atheists are control freaks. Not only do they insist that their worldview is superior to ours because atheism,  they are hostile to our presentations of reason. Credit: Pixabay /  Arek Socha Atheists and other anti-creationists attempt to justify their worldviews and morality by attacking God and simultaneously saying they "lack belief" in his existence and creation. Evidence for his existence is rejected based on their materialistic presuppositions, not because of flaws in our logic or the evidence. The use of presuppositional apologetics is something that really puts burrs under their saddles because we give critiques of their worldviews, expose flaws in their epistemology , point out logical fallacies, and especially because we stand on the authority of God's Word.  Some get downright

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen One of the most difficult things about being a Christian is: other Christians. Believers can have their faith adversely affected or even set it aside and unbelievers use our treatment of each other as an excuse to ridicule the faith and justify their rebellion against God. Those verses on how believers are supposed to treat each other seem to have been excised from Bibles nowadays. It gets discouraging. It gets mighty frustrating when we are working on helping the church with apologetics and biblical creation, then some tinhorn from a different camp comes along with his or her own ideas and flings horse apples at us in the guise of "reason" while pretending to do Jesus a big favor. We expect viperine tactics from atheists and other unbelievers, but it gets mighty smelly coming from professing Christians. Southern Evangelical Seminary and Bible College has a doctrinal statement that seems reasonable to me, but some things are missing that people

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen When I began doing creation apologetics many centuries ago, I foolishly tried to divorce the Bible from scientific and logical evidence. My approach was only discussing theology when necessary, keeping scientific evidence for creation separate, arguing on neutral ground. Essentially, I was compartmentalizing . Floral compartments image credit: Unsplash / Michael Aleo One big problem with the idea of neutral ground is that it is contrary to Scripture . If you ride up to the top of the hill and get the bigger picture, you'll also see that discussions of origins are metaphysical in nature. Really, they involve theology.  Have you ever noticed that folks who want both sides presented in an unbiased view so people can "make up their own minds" seldom (if ever) accurately represent biblical creation science? They are biased toward materialism, therefore favoring atheistic interpretations of evidence. via GIPHY You want equal time, pilgrim?

One of the biggest problems for unbelievers and Christians alike is what is often called the problem of evil. People have different concepts of what they consider evil, but those are essentially based on trends in cultures or even personal preferences. Credit: Freeimages /  createsima The candies I'm chawing right now are evil because I'm not supposed to have them, but it's my fault for eating the things. The bird that flew away with Captain America's hot dog was evil. There are some Christians who consider rock music to be evil because, well, because. Others consider country music evil. Those examples are personal preferences (and a bit of sarcasm), not there is no actual evil involved. Natural disasters are evil because of the destruction of property and loss of life, but that is really nature doing what nature does. Terrorists are evil, but from their perspective, they are seeking some kind of greater good. Brian Sims acts like pro-life activists are evil, b

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen In the lead-up to Question Evolution Day , I posted and promoted " Taking a Stand for Biblical Creation ", which garnered a prairie schooner-full of comments. Normally, that Fazebook Page is not intended for debate, but I let them go for a spell. Nobody that I saw gave any comments about the content of the article that was featured. Credit: Openclipart Naturally, we had atheopaths and other anti-creationists show up to tell us how st00pid we are because atheism, because evolution. Obstreperous trolls get banned, but some seemed to want actual discussion. At first. I have to mention that it become very difficult to keep track of the comments and respond to them, and we have to track them down when informed, "Horatio Hornblower replied to your comment..." (This is especially difficult when I'm checking during breaks at the workplace, but not much better at home on the big computer.) I tried, though. Unfortunately, the notification

Speculative questions can be as useful as a hole in a milk bucket, as you can spend a lot of time working at them, but not much get accomplished. You get a "what if" and a "yeah, but" added now and then, and folks get a mite overwrought. On the other hand, if handled properly, though, thought experiments can be interesting and productive. Uncle Albert Einstein liked them , after all. So, let's see if we can make use of the question about whether or not Paul the Apostle would debate modern evolutionists if he rode into town today. Made at Break Your Own News , background image St. Paul Preaching in Athens , Raphael, 1515 Paul was enthusiastic, to say the least. He would reason, discuss, debate, and so on at the drop of a hat, and he'd drop his own hat if nobody else did. Okay, the last part is an exaggeration, but I don't reckon it's too far afield. However, how would he deal with evolutionists? Would he try to "out evidence them"

Biblical creationists are occasionally requested to give what we consider the best evidence for creation, and closely following, the best evidence that the earth is young. We have quite a bit of scientific and logical evidence for both. However, it is a serious mistake to try to "out evidence" a skeptic, because they often counter with something else (often unrelated — be careful of distractions), then you counter the counter, ad nauseum, even though the evidence is on the side of biblical creationists. Credit: Unsplash / Robert Lukeman Many times, atheists and evolutionists will reject what we present out of hand because of their naturalistic and deep time presuppositions. They are not in the habit of honestly considering books, videos, articles, and so on, and find rescuing devices. Creationists often have links thrown at us, which can be from atheistic and evolutionary sites, compromising Christians, and so forth. Scoffers have a habit of finding something written for