Evidence is for Believers – Not Mockers

“Let the children come” – Jesus

If you’re reading this, you likely have an interest in either finding evidence for the Christian faith, or presenting evidence to defend your faith. The endeavor to defend the faith is known as apologetics. When doing  apologetics we often have a focus on presenting evidence or reasons to believe in the Christian faith. That is why you see apologetics ministries with names like Reasonable Faith[1] or Reasons to Believe[2] and even my own Rational Faith. In this age dominated by Science and scientism[3] many have identified the need to defend Christianity against pervasive claims that modern minds cannot believe in the ancient claims of Christianity because many of those claims appear unscientific or outright impossible and are therefore unbelievable.  After all how can the modern mind believe in a 7 day creation and a 6000 year old universe; and an original Adam and Eve when the modern scientific community is telling you the universe is some 13.7 billion years old, and humans were not created, they evolved?

Continue Reading

Conspiracy Theory: You Killed JFK (And other false claims and abuses of Evidence)

JFK Motorcade

NO EVIDENCE. In what amounts to an abuse of evidence, atheists are fond of saying that there is no evidence for the existence of God. If you doubt that, take a look at this brief collection of atheists telling the world that very thing.  But is that a true claim? When a proposition is not true, you would expect to find no evidence for that proposition.

Take for example the proposition in the title – that  you, yes you dear reader –  killed JFK on the fateful day – November 22, 1963 at Dealey Plaza in Dallas. All reading this could no doubt  refute that claim. But those born after that date have a particularly easy and obvious piece of evidence that falsifies the proposition. The claim that they weren’t even born yet backed with a birth certificate to prove it. Continue Reading

Leibniz’ Cosmological Argument: Testimony of the Golden Gate Bridge Part 2

The above logo was created for the 80th anniversary of the opening of the Golden Gate bridge.  According to retired Security chief Bill Rumsford, they were expecting 40-50,000 people. But the turnout was closer to 250 to 275,000 people. While they were confident the bridge would hold, Chief Engineer Denis Mulligan noted “What was interesting is that’s the greatest loading the bridge has ever seen. It carries trucks and buses and cars everyday, but people packed in there like sardines in a can actually caused the bridge to sag.”[1]

But this article is not on the structural integrity of the bridge. This is about something a bit more obvious. The above logo is painted on a building near the bridge. (Note the artist painting it.)

A Painting Requires a Painter

The obvious point that I want to make is that for a painting to exist, it needs a painter. Obvious right? Because a painting – in this case a logo – is a special case of a design that is implemented.  In the previous article we looked at another special design – that of irreducible complexity. As discussed in the previous article, an irreducibly complex object cannot be made by random forces. It must be designed and assembled by an intelligent designer.  And as pointed out in part 1 – a suspension bridge like the Golden Gate bridge is irreducibly complex. Continue Reading

Testimony of the Golden Gate: Bridges, Body Parts and Intelligent Design

The Golden Gate Bridge

I enjoy looking for evidences of the Creator imprinted on his creation when I travel. This past summer we had the opportunity of visiting San Francisco where we saw the awe inspiring Golden Gate bridge and I snapped the above picture.  I was also reminded of the Creator – in an indirect way. Obviously God didn’t directly build the bridge – but the bridge is a reminder of the design inherent in His creation. Let me explain. It is abundantly evident that the Golden Gate bridge is intelligently designed. But beyond that, not only is it intelligently designed,  it’s clear it is also irreducibly complex. And irreducible complexity is an undeniable evidence of intelligent design..

Michael Behe introduced the concept of irreducible complexity in his book “Darwin’s Black Box, and defined it this way: Continue Reading

Is three tier flat earth cosmology getting short shrift from Biblical Creationists?

Heaven Earth and Seas of the Ancient 3 Tier Universe Cosmology

In response to my previous article “What Might Einstein Think About Flat Earth Theories” (posted on the Creation Club site)

Dean writes:

The flat earth society is the source for the absurd idea that the earth is “pancake shaped” and it is “accelerating upward” in order to replace gravity. The Biblical Three Tier Cosmology model makes no such claim. I am still looking for Biblical young earth creation ministries to honestly address the Biblical flat earth model. I keep finding articles like this that misrepresent the majority on other side.

The Bible teaches us that the earth is not in any motion and is at rest on a foundation with pillars and a cornerstone. All experiments designed to demonstrate earth’s motion have failed.

The Copernicus/Pythagoras model IS the Big Bang/Evolution model promoted by young earth creationists. It has no Biblical support whatsoever

You seem to value Einstein as a scientist even though this is his real resume:
Proven theories – 0
Patents – 0
Discoveries – 0
Inventions – 0

The response I wrote (below) is a bit long for a comment, so I present it here instead.  Also for the reader’s reference – depicted above – the Three Tier Cosmology model Dean refers to consisting of Heavens, Earth and Seas.[1]  Note that : Continue Reading

Human and Dino tracks and Why Atheists Can’t Find Evidence of God – Part 2

Alvis Delk Human Dinosaur footprints at the Creation Evidence Museum

Before we get to the meat of the matter, I’m sure some are wondering “Where is Part 1?”  Sometimes a better name for an article occurs to you after you’ve already published it. Such is the case with the previous article, which should have been titled something like:

Why Atheists Can’t Find Evidence of God (Part 1)
Why Atheists Can’t Find Evidence of Intelligent Design
Why Evolutionists Can’t Find Evidence of Creation

And while in this digital age of online publishing though it is possible to change the title, it still seems a bit unseemly, so I have left it with the original title. But for those who are wondering where Part 1 is, that’s where it is, titled with a question meant to get you thinking about one of the main reasons why atheists can’t find evidence of God (and why evolutions can’t find evidence of intelligent design.)

Part 1 lays out two reasons why atheists can’t find either evidence of God or Intelligent design; and in similar fashion why evolutionists can’t find evidence of Creation. Those reasons are: Continue Reading

Can you find what you deny exists? Three Guarantees

Teapot on a cone

I recently read an article by Jonathan Witt –  science writer and co-author of “Heretic: One Scientist’s Journey from Darwin to Design” which describes bioengineer Matti Leisola’s (the other co-author) gradual rejection of Darwinism and embrace of intelligent design. In his article titled “A Father, an Atheist Son, and a Darwin Heretic” Witt describes the attempt of a father to get his son – a scientist and an atheist – to consider the claims of intelligent design by reading Witt’s and Leisola’s book “Heretic.”

The son rejects even reading the book with a number of excuses: Continue Reading

Evolution and Software – A Fundamental Misunderstanding – or an Outright Fraud?

“Digital Snake Oil”

MIT Technology review published an online article titled, “Evolutionary algorithm outperforms deep-learning machines at video games[1] I wondered to myself what do they mean by “evolutionary”?  Though it’s impossible, could they really mean evolution as in Darwinian evolution, or were they just using evolution to mean successive changes in design, the way we might say something like “the evolution of the car has gone from the Model T to the Mustang”, in which case we don’t really mean Darwinian evolution – we’re really just talking about successive changes in the design of an item.

But as I read on, I was amazed to read that they were really talking about Darwinian processes: “This technique is based on the process that created the human brain—evolution.” (Darwinists believe the most complex biological organ known to man came about by ignorant, random, purposeless forces.) The technique they’re referring to is a new approach to computer programming, and the evolution they are referring to is in fact Darwinian evolution. They make that clear in the next sentences:
Continue Reading

Young earth or Old? The Wrong Approach to the debate that divides Christians

In the beginning… Gen 1.1

Editor’s note:  This is in response to Tom Gilson’s article “Young Earth or Old? The Debate That Divides Christians — But Shouldn’t[1] Normally I wouldn’t bother posting a comment on an article I’ve read to this site, but I’m making an exception here because 1. This is a topic I’ve written on a number of times on this site, so it’s fitting here and 2. For some reason my comment remains marked as “spam” and thus is not visible under Tom’s article, though I’ve indicated it’s not spam. And rather that speculate why it remains unpublished as of this writing I offer it to you here in its entirety, with a few added notes for clarification.
– Duane

Tom, you’re usually right on the mark, but here you’re advocating a very dangerous position. You’re basically advocating “leave it to the experts.” You’re stating this issue is so complex it requires “a high level of expertise in multiple fields, including biblical Hebrew, Ancient Near East literature and culture, and four or five major branches of science.” Continue Reading

Proteins, Panspermia, Predictions and Pavlov’s Scientists

Complex Organics Bubble up from Ocean-world Enceladus

Pavlov and his Scientists
“In the Spring a young man’s fancy lightly turns to thoughts of love” Alfred, Lord Tennyson famously wrote.[1]
Likewise the hearts of scientists involved in origin of life studies turn to hopes of finding life somewhere in the universe other than earth. But theirs is not a “lightly turning” – it’s more like a conditioned response – the type of response you get from Pavlov’s dogs.
Continue Reading