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

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)
or
Why Atheists Can’t Find Evidence of Intelligent Design
or
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

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

Hell is for liars Part 2: The Heart of the Lie

Satan’s advice: Be proud

In part 1 of this series, I pointed out that God will not allow liars into heaven (Rev 21.8), and then pointed out some of the lies that will keep you from heaven. Some wanted to make a distinction between those actively lying by trying to deceive, and those duped by the lies.  But those who read closely understood that objection was answered implicitly with the analogy of poison: It doesn’t matter if you drink poison because someone lied to you and told you it was a harmless soft drink; Or because you’ve deceived yourself and are now convinced that the poison – say arsenic – is not really poison at all, and it won’t harm you, in fact it’s good for you so you consume lots of it. (Think “did God really say…” Gen 3.1) – regardless of what causes you to drink the poison whether you’re actively deceiving (yourself) or are merely deceived and believe the lie, if you drink it, you will die. Continue Reading

Hell is for liars

The Christian doctrine of hell:  conscious, painful, separation from God for all eternity for those who refuse God’s salvation. Perhaps the most difficult doctrine to deal with – for both Christians and non-Christians alike. This is such a difficult teaching there are plenty of people, cults and religions who outright deny it. After the denial of the deity of Christ, the doctrine of  hell is one of the first Biblical teachings to go.  In its place – everything from annihilation of the soul to universal salvation. Apparently the doctrine of hell is so scary even annihilation – eternal nonexistence –  is preferable to the Biblical doctrine of hell. According to one account, the Catholic doctrine of purgatory (a temporary place of punishment to pay for any un-forgiven sins) came about because punishment consisting of eternal wrath could not be countenanced by at least one early church father[1]. But the doctrine of purgatory is strictly a Catholic add on teaching – it’s not in the Bible. And it’s not what we’re talking about. Let’s be clear about what we are talking about. Continue Reading

If the resurrection is true, why doesn’t everyone believe?

Prefect Mauritius Gallas speaks with the Apostle Paul in “Paul, Apostle of Christ”

A Meditation for Easter

Just-in-time for resurrection day (aka Easter), is the movie Paul, Apostle of Christ. In it, we find the apostle Paul (played by James Faulkner) in the jail of  Roman prefect Mauritius Gallas (played by Olivier Martinez). As I mentioned in my review, this film presents the thinking Christian with many questions to ponder. One of those questions is about the resurrection and is posed by the prefect, which if memory serves, is actually phrased as a statement along these lines: If the resurrection were the truth, then all would believe.  The movie has the apostle answering with a verse from his often quoted chapter on the resurrection (1 Cor 15.1-20):

“… if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless…” (1 Cor 15.14)

But that response answers the question, “is the resurrection true?” It does not really address the deeper issue the prefect appears to be getting at. That question is, Continue Reading

Review: Paul, Apostle of Christ

It’s AD 67,  some 34 to 37 years after the crucifixion of Christ. Nero, emperor of Rome has recently burned half the city in order to rebuild it according to his tastes. To cover his crime Nero scapegoats all Christians, and as the historian Tacitus tells us, Nero arrests, tries and convicts them not of arson, but of “hatred of the human race,” and puts them to death by “methods calculated to provide lurid entertainment for the public.”[1] Paul, the apostle of Christ is a key figure in the Christian faith and community. As such, Nero holds the Apostle Paul directly responsible for the fire, considering him the “chief enemy of Rome.”

Consequently when the movie opens we find the Apostle in prison awaiting his fate.  Luke, the physician and writer of the Gospel of the same name, and the Acts of the Apostles (commonly known as Acts) arrives in the city with a mission to save and retrieve the last of the writings of the apostle, determined that such important words not be lost. Continue Reading

Do Ancient Chronologies Challenge the Bible? Part 3: The Tower of Babel

The construction of the Tower of Babel

In parts 1 and 2, we saw how misunderstandings of ancient texts led to commonly held, but incorrect views.  Part one demonstrated why the early date of the exodus – 1446 BC – is the correct date. Part two demonstrated that commonly held Egyptian chronology is off and identified the amount of the error at the point of the exodus by identifying the pharaoh of the Exodus. (Hint: it’s not Rameses or any of the other commonly suggested pharaohs.) Here in part three we see a more egregious error: An outright denial of Biblical truth. Whereas in parts one and two those who came to the wrong conclusions likely did so honestly – by simply misunderstanding the text.  But there can be no mistake here: it is clear the error here can only be arrived at by an outright denial of the biblical text – and its related teachings – at many levels. Let me give you an illustration of why this must be the case.  Continue Reading