Are Biblical accounts copied from pagan religions? Part 2. The Resurrection

Depiction of the empty tomb of Jesus

Depiction of the empty tomb of Jesus

Since the original sin in the garden of Eden, mankind has searched for reasons not to believe God so he could live a life independent of God. In the garden, the serpent convinced Eve not to trust God. Why? Supposedly because God was holding back the knowledge of good and evil to the detriment of Adam and Eve. The serpent suggested God was wrong f0r withholding that knowledge, but that if they were to discover the truth, they would be “like God”. (Gen 3.5) That was a big lie. God was indeed withholding the knowledge of evil, but he was not wrong in doing so because he knew that (experiential) knowledge of evil (like disobeying God) would lead to death.  And the biggest irony is – they were already like God (Gen 1.26),  there was nothing to be gained from what the serpent offered.

Today there is another lie circulating to destroy belief in God: The claim that the biblical accounts are not history, but rather stories borrowed or stolen and then adapted from the made up stories of pagan religions. If there’s no reason to believe the pagan religions, then there’s no reason to believe a made up story based on it either. Continue Reading

MicroEvolution: Dispelling the Myths and Misconceptions

As the above image implies, there’s a mist that surrounds the concept of microevolution that conceals clarity on the matter. If you’re not a close follower of the theories that comprise Darwin’s theory of evolution[1], you are probably laboring under a misconception of what microevolution is.  That misconception is furthered (it appears to me) by Darwinists seeking to bolster the evidence-lacking theory.  To dispel the mists surrounding this often abused term, and shine the light on the truth, following are five myths or misconceptions, and the reality or the truth behind each one.

As I point out in an article titled “Games Evolutionists Play: The Name Game” part of the problem with demonstrating the falsity of  Darwinism is that evolutionists keep changing the definition in an attempt to keep evolution from being falsified. So let’s start with a firm definition. Jonathan Wells, author of “Icons of  Evolution” provides a firm definition of both micro-evolution and macro-evolution in the glossary of his book “The Myth of Junk DNA“: Continue Reading

Is Creation Relevant? Part 2: Undisputed Evidence

In part 1 of this article, we began to explore the dynamics around the question, “Is creation relevant?” What we found is that to God, it is quite relevant – it is the first thing he wants us to know about himself, as indicated in the first verse of the Bible – “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” But today, due to a desire to make and live one’s own reality, people are throwing away what God has clearly created and instituted in order to fashion a world made to their own likings and tastes – whether such a world is true or not. And since they have rejected God’s truth – the world they fashion is increasingly distant from the truth of what God created. And thus like the shadow of Mordor over Tolkien’s middle earth, the shadow of self deception grows increasingly long over the lives of people today.

In our previous exploration, we left off pondering the  question “how do we begin to address this problem of a rejection of absolutes and the creator?” – the Creator being of course the ultimate absolute. Which is where we pick it up today.  In order to address the problem, we must understand what is at the root of the problem of people rejecting the Creator and His teaching on creation. Otherwise we will merely  be treating symptoms, while the disease continues to ravage the body (Some of those symptoms – 80-90% who make a profession of faith fall away; 2/3 of professing young adults leave the faith by the time they leave college; the falling numbers of people adhering to Biblical truth, etc.). Thus we must understand why people reject the creator. Continue Reading

Evolution: Not Science, Pseudoscience

A duck dressed as a scientist is still a duck. And a pseudoscientific theory dressed up like real science is still pseudoscience.  That just leaves the question: is evolution pseudoscience?  Fortunately, that’s an easy question to answer: yes. And even better, you don’t need to be a scientist to recognize a pseudoscience, just as you don’t need to be a doctor to recognize the difference between a human and a non-human like a duck. Anyone who knows what a “human” and a “duck” is can easily discern the difference. And anyone who knows what “science” and “pseudoscience” is will likewise easily discern the difference.

As  you are probably already aware, a favored tactic of  proponents of evolution is to label both Creation and Intelligent Design disciplines as “pseudosciences.”  The irony of course being that it is a trivial matter to demonstrate that Darwinian goo-to-you evolution is the epitome of a pseudoscience.  Yet regardless of  how clear the evidence is, you will never, ever get an evolutionist to acknowledge that Darwinian molecules-to-man evolution is a pseudoscience. So in this article we’ll first take a look at how Darwinian evolution fits the definition of a pseudoscience perfectly; then press on to demonstrate how evolution breaks a number of the known laws of science further proving it to be pseudoscience in spite of their protestations that “it’s science.”

According to the bastion of popular secular knowledge known as Wikipedia, a pseudoscience is:

“…a claim, belief, or practice presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to the scientific method. A field, practice, or body of knowledge can reasonably be called pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research,  but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms.”[1]

So one cannot know whether something is a pseudoscience until one first understands the scientific method. Again, according to Wikipedia, the scientific method is:

“a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as “a method or
procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.”[2]

Evolution fits the definition of a pseudoscience

Evolution fits every criteria necessary to be identified as a pseudoscience: Continue Reading

Misguided attacks by evolutionists

 Those who deny God’s activity in the creation routinely try to kill any evidence that originates from the Bible.

In their zeal to defend evolutionary theory evolutionists often make unfounded and fallacious charges and accusations. Following is the problem with three of those attacks.

1. A Misguided attack on reason: “There’s no evidence of God”

The only alternative to life arising via some form of evolution, is that all life originated from God. There is no other alternative. Thus, in support of the godless theory of evolution, atheists and evolutionists alike tend to use the argument “there’s no evidence of God”, and its variant “there’s no evidence for x” – for any “x” they don’t believe. They don’t believe in God, so they say there’s no evidence of God. They don’t believe in an intelligent designer, so they say there’s no evidence for intelligent design. They don’t believe in miracles, so they say there’s no evidence of miracles, and some will foolishly go so far as to say there’s no evidence of the miracle worker Jesus.  What are we to make of such allegations? Continue Reading

Earth’s magnetic field: Testament to more than a young earth

The earth is protected by a powerful but decreasing magnetic field.

Earth’s magnetic field exhibits signs of being young and part of a grand design.

Saturn has its beautiful rings. Diamonds are often photographed adorning the fingers or the necks of beautiful women.  Both Saturn and diamonds are testimonies to a young earth (which I wrote about here and here). The earth’s magnetic field is also a testament to a young earth – but it’s more than that; it’s a powerful testimony that God created it. But being invisible to the naked eye, earth’s magnetic field is at a distinct disadvantage in this visual age – requiring visual aids like the depiction of the field above. But make no mistake, the magnetic field around the earth is one of the most powerful testaments to a carefully and lovingly designed young earth  that you’re likely to find. And what it lacks in glamour, it makes up for in the power of its evidentiary support of Genesis 1.1: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.  Here’s why:

Evidences Gleaned from Earth’s Magnetic Field

1. Young earth

Old earth proponents will tell you that the earth is about 4 1/2 billion old. That means the magnetic field should also be about 4 1/2 billion years old. If that were true you would expect to have a magnetic field that’s very stable, not changing  much over time – since we’re talking about a lot of time: not merely hundreds of years, or thousands or even millions of years, but billions with a “b”.  The problem with that supposition is that it doesn’t match the observed measurements. It has been known for some time that the earth’s magnetic field is decaying. As geologist and creationist John D. Morris put it:

“The strength of the magnetic field has been reliably and continually measured since 1835. From these measurements, we can see that the field’s strength has declined by about seven percent since then, giving a half-life of about 1,400 years.”1

Obviously that’s a problem. A field decaying that quickly will last only a few thousand years not a few billion. And it’s gotten worse for old age earth believers:  scientists have recently discovered that the field has begun to decay even faster:

“Previously, researchers estimated the field was weakening about 5 percent per century, but the new data revealed the field is actually weakening at 5 percent per decade, or 10 times faster than thought.”2

This does not bode well for the old earth explanation of a magnetic field that is billions of years old. Their explanation up to this point has been the field is created and maintained by a “dynamo”, a natural generator. Magnetic fields are created by the movement of electrons – a current flow. Scientist posit that the rotation of the earth and convection (movement due to heat) is sufficient to produce a current from the molten iron/nickel of the earth’s outer core, which they believe would create a self-sustaining field generating dynamo. The problem with the theory is that “Scientists have not produced a workable analytic model, despite 40-50 years of research, and there are many problems.”3

Creation Theory is Better Science
Contrary to claims that Creation Science is not really science because it makes no predictions and has no objective data that can be tested,  creationist scientist Continue Reading

Denying the Obvious

Boeing 747 Intercontinental

Boeing 747 Intercontinental

Those who can’t see the design behind clearly designed things such as a 747 or a human cell are denying the obvious.

In his critique of Stephen Hawking’s “Grand Design”, John Lennox writes:

“…after disparaging philosophy, he then proceeds to engage in it. For, insofar as he is interpreting and applying science to ultimate questions  like the existence of God, Hawking is doing metaphysics. Now, let us be clear, I do not fault him for doing that; I shall be engaging in metaphysics  all through this book. My concern is that he does not seem to recognize this.”1

Stephen Hawking is not the only atheist who doesn’t realize he’s engaging in metaphysics by dealing with questions of God. And  that is not the only truth atheists fail to recognize. As I demonstrate below, many have a problem acknowledging that they are working not from scientific  fact, but from deeply held belief. Lennox is not the first to point out obvious errors to someone who refuses to acknowledge it.

“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?” (Mat 7:3 NIV)    

With these words Jesus advises careful and close self examination to avoid not only the charge of  hypocrisy, but this current  issue of self denial. After all one can hardly miss a “plank” or “beam” in the eye unless one is  intentionally refusing to acknowledge it. That’s denial. And while some may find it questionable to poke the bear by  appealing to a historical figure that some atheists deny, what is undeniable is the logic and wisdom of the advice.  I mention it because one of the  reasons for this blog is to point out errors, blind spots and logical inconsistencies that atheists tend to be either unaware of, or attempt to avoid by refusing to address. As a creationist attempting to point out such errors and inconsistencies,  I find I keep running into the same kinds of  invalid (and often irrational) arguments from atheists, such as:

  • – Intentionally missing the point, or avoidance of the point being made
  • – Factual errors in their arguments which they refuse to acknowledge or address
  • – Engaging in illicit arguments – based on their beliefs

Often, when you point out these errors, they are not addressed, not because the objection is not understood, but because there  simply is no  reasonable answer to the objection. So instead of acknowledging a problem with their world view, typically the response from atheists or agnostics will be show their inability to address the issue by to changing the subject and/or  launching ad hominem attacks. But in refusing to address a glaring problem in their argument or logic by attempting to side step it, it leads one to an inescapable conclusion:

Many who hold to an atheistic world view and belief system are in denial about the fact that what they consider a “scientific” rational for supporting a “scientific theory” is  actually nothing more than a deeply held, but irrational belief.

By irrational I mean untrue, or in the case of an argument, invalid for any of a number of reasons. By refusing to acknowledge or address such blatant errors what they are actually communicating is – Continue Reading