Transcription:
“The opposable thumb is an amazing product of millions of years of evolu…”—CLICK! Change the channel!
Thank you God… for the gift of the opposable thumb!
Some people have wrongly assumed that Matthew and Luke (the author of Acts) are contradictory in their account of Judas’ death. Since the Bible is inerrant Judas cannot have died by hanging and died by falling and bursting open. Rather they are two different viewpoints of the same event. For example, if I saw a car hit a pedestrian, I might simply say that the pedestrian died because they were hit by the car. The coroner who came on the scene later but did not actually see the accident might give a graphic description of the injuries to the pedestrian. Both the coroner and I are describing the same event just different aspects of it.
Matthew tells us that Judas died by hanging (death is inferred from the passage). Luke, being a doctor, gives us a graphic description of what occurred following the hanging. The reason for ordering the events as such is twofold. First, if someone has fallen and their internal organs spilled out they would die and so could not subsequently die from hanging. Secondly, even when people suffer bad falls they do not usually burst open and have their internal organs spill out. The skin is very tough and even when cut in the abdominal area their internals do not usually spill out. Thus, it is unlikely that Judas could die in this manner merely from falling.
Gruesome as it is, Judas’ dead body hung in the hot sun of Jerusalem, and the bacteria inside his body would have been actively breaking down tissues and cells. A byproduct of bacterial metabolism is often gas. The pressure created by the gas forces fluid out of the cells and tissues and into the body cavities. The body becomes bloated as a result. In addition, tissue decomposition occurs compromising the integrity of the skin. Judas’ body was similar to an overinflated balloon, and as he hit the ground (due to the branch he hung on or the rope itself breaking) the skin easily broke and he burst open with his internal organs spilling out.
There is no contradiction surrounding Judas’ death; rather, merely two descriptions given by two different authors of the same event.
You see, if evolution is true, science has an even bigger problem than Cain’s wife to explain—namely, how could man ever evolve by mutations (mistakes) in the first place, since that process would have made everyone’s children deformed? The mere fact that people can produce offspring that are not largely deformed is a testimony to creation, not evolution.
The issue is this: did God have any involvement or not? Did God inspire the authors of the Scriptures? When someone claims that the Bible was written by men and not God, this is an absolute statement that reveals something extraordinary.
It reveals that the person saying this is claiming to be transcendent! When one claims that God was not inspiring the human authors of the Bible, that person is claiming to be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent!
Although some evolutionists claim that the Intelligent Design Movement (IDM) is a sort of Trojan horse for creationism to get into schools, those in the IDM are not necessarily even Christian, let alone creationists.
Creationism begins with the belief that the Bible is God’s infallible Word to us. The Bible provides the framework by which we understand the world. Because the Bible teaches that there is a Creator and that the earth is young, creationists base all our research on this foundation.
Conversely, the IDM holds that certain aspects of living things and the universe can best be explained by being the work of an intelligent designer. The identity of this creator and whether or not the Bible is true are non-factors. While creationists may agree with some aspects of intelligent design theory, those who do conflate IDM with creationism likely do not understand either.
[About the sixth day of creation]
This means that each kind of dinosuar was created on the same day that god made the first two people, Adam and Eve! Do you realize what that means?
It means dinosuars and people lived toghether!
[The ninth commandment says we should never bear false witness against our neighbor (or anyone). But if the Nazis are looking for Jews, and you know where they are, it would not be wrong to lie, in order to protect them, nor would this be bearing false witness “against” someone]
If we love God, we should obey Him (John 14:15). To love God first means to obey Him first—before looking at our neighbor. So, is the greater good trusting God when He says not to lie or trusting in our fallible, sinful minds about the uncertain future?
Consider this carefully. In the situation of a Nazi beating on the door, we have assumed a lie would save a life, but really we don’t know. So, one would be opting to lie and disobey God without the certainty of saving a life—keeping in mind that all are ultimately condemned to die physically. Besides, whether one lied or not may not have stopped the Nazi solders from searching the house anyway.
As Christians, we need to keep in mind that Jesus Christ reigns. All authority has been given to Him (Matthew 28:18), and He sits on the throne of God at the right hand of the Father (Acts 2:33; Hebrews 8:1). Nothing can happen without His say. Even Satan could not touch Peter without Christ’s approval (Luke 22:31). Regardless, if one were to lie or not, Jesus Christ is in control of timing every person’s life and able to discern our motives. It is not for us to worry over what might become, but rather to place our faith and obedience in Christ and to let Him do the reigning. For we do not know the future, whereas God has been telling the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10).
First, the Bible itself claims to be the inspired Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16). For some reason, many people seem to dismiss this as if such internal evidence doesn’t count. But this is a double standard that they would not apply to most other books. Consider my book Taking Back Astronomy. This book claims to have been written by me, and most people would accept that it really is written by me simply because it says so. So, why do some people arbitrarily reject the Bible’s internal claim? This is the fallacy of special pleading and may indicate an anti-God bias that is part of our fallen nature.
There are many reasons we believe the Bible and all that it contains:
* The Bible claims to be the Word of God. 2 Timothy 3:16 states that every word of Scripture is inspired by God. 2 Peter 1:21 says that men of God wrote as they were “driven along” by the Holy Spirit.
* The Bible shows itself to be the Word of God. Every time there is a scientific or historical fact mentioned in the Bible, it has been shown to be true (the earth is round, currents in the sea, the prevailing winds, etc.). Even when a civilization mentioned has not been heard of before, archaeology eventually finds evidence that it really did exist.
* Jesus Christ quoted from the Bible and believed it to be true. Jesus used the Bible when He was being tempted by Satan. He also quoted the Bible numerous times and stated that He was fulfilling Scripture.
* Many Bible prophecies have already been fulfilled. There are thousands of prophecies in the Bible that have come true. Jesus Himself fulfilled over 600 through His life, death, and resurrection. Because so many prophecies in the Bible have already come true, we can trust that the rest will be fulfilled in the future.
* If the Bible is not true, then we have no basis for claiming we have been saved from our sins. It is only because of the Bible that we can say our sins have been forgiven. If we trust the Bible for our salvation, we must trust everything it says. Otherwise, we are picking and choosing only what we want to believe.
Transcript:
Which one are you going to trust?
Holy Bible? “It is written” Matt. 4:4
Or Evolution BELIEF? “It is written and rewritten and rewritten and Rewritten and…”
(On the question "How we know that only the Bible is the written and actual word of God, when other religion's book claim the same?")
The argument is not “The Bible is the Word of God because it says it is.” Rather, the argument is “The Bible is the Word of God because it says it is and any alternative leads to absurdity.”
If the Bible were not the Word of God, we would have no foundation for all the things we take for granted, such as laws of logic, uniformity of nature, and morality. The law of non-contradiction, for example, is based on the self-consistent nature of the biblical God (2 Timothy 2:13). The Bible itself tells us that all knowledge depends upon God (Proverbs 1:7; Colossians 2:3). Most other religious books do not make the claim that all knowledge is deposited in their god; and if they did, they would not be able to make good on the claim. Therefore, the argument will only work for the Bible.
[Why won't God heal amputees, you may ask? Well AiG has an answer that is so satisfying that it'll blow your fucking mind!]
God has done greater works than restoring limbs. If He created the entire universe out of nothing, spoke all plants and animals into existence, sculpted and breathed life into the first two humans, and raised His Son from death, it is clear that He has the power to heal amputees if and when it is His will.
[Ta da!]
At the university level, Jason discovered that an important element in scientific study and the drawing of conclusions was this: that scientists usually are not aware of their presuppositions (i.e. they interpret scientific evidence in light of their existing worldview). It thus made it easier for him to see that intelligent scientists, many who were his professors, can disagree on what the evidence really means, for they have different starting points. So as he read creation materials, he could see that when the evidence was properly interpreted, it always supported the biblical account of creation (even with the thorny question of starlight and time).
No apparent, perceived, or claimed interpretation of evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.
Of course, as Christians, we have no reason to hide from evolutionary beliefs and presentations. In fact, we should know and understand evolution better than non-Christians.
A Feathered Dinosaur?
A common idea among those who believe molecules-to-man evolution is that dinosaurs have turned into birds over millions of years. But, from the Bible (Genesis 1), we know that God created all things about 6,000 years ago—birds on Day 5 of the first week, dinosaurs (land animals) on Day 6.
So what about the “feathered dinosaurs”? Do they prove that dinosaurs changed into birds? For example, some scientists have recently found bumps on the forearm of a velociraptor. They suggest that the bumps were where feathers attached to the bone.
Although no actual feathers were found with the velociraptor fossil (or any other dinosaur fossil, for that matter), it may be that some dinosaurs had feathers. But this group of animals would merely be a kind of feathered reptile—descendants of the animals that God created in the beginning. Feathers on reptiles have nothing to do with proving that one kind of animal changed into another kind. They just show the creativity and diversity of our wonderful Creator God!
(Someone needs to teach them how to do math)
The floodwaters (above) of the Canyon Lake Spillway along the Guadalupe River in Texas were moving at 107,000 ft3/sec (normal 175 ft3/sec). After the waters receded, carved bedrock was the result of the rushing water (below).
(As a note the speed of sound is 1125 feet per second)
"However, when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it’s the interpretation of the data that is at fault."
The construction of any biblical model of recolonization must include these principles. The model suggested on the following pages is constructed in good faith, to explain the observed facts through the “eyeglasses” of the Bible. The Bible is inspired, but our scientific models are not. If we subsequently find the model to be untenable, this would not shake our commitment to the absolute authority of Scripture.
The model uses the multiplication of dogs as an example of how animals could have quickly repopulated the earth. Two dogs came off Noah’s Ark and began breeding more dogs. Within a relatively short time period, there would be an incredible number of dogs of all sorts of different shapes and sizes.
These dogs then began to spread out from the Ararat region to all parts of the globe.
As these dogs spread around the world, variations within the dog kind led to many of the varieties we find today. But it is important to note that they are still dogs. This multiplication of variations within a kind is the same with the many other kinds of animals.
Each land animal kind was represented on Noah’s Ark by two or seven individuals. After the Flood, as each kind reproduced and spread out over the earth, different species within a kind resulted from natural selection (and other genetic factors). This is NOT EVOLUTION in the molecules-to-man sense, because no new information is added into the genes.
[On the recent ice discovery on Mars]
In fact, this particular icy discovery should cause a cold feeling for evolutionists, who would much prefer to find liquid water but instead have found only this scant evidence of subsurface ice. And of course, the very idea that liquid or frozen water on Mars is a “big thing” comes straight from the evolutionary faith that where there’s water, life will follow. In fact, that’s the entire premise of today’s Martian landers.
[snip]
Since the focus of God’s plan occurs on planet Earth—and since nearly every chapter of the Bible takes place somewhere on planet Earth4—when it comes to astronomy, creationists have a basic framework in which to research and explore but few revealed details. This doesn’t mean we can rewrite what God’s Word clearly teaches—that the entire universe dates back only 6,000 or so years, with most of the universe having been created on Day 4 of Creation Week. But looking to the heavens gives us a great opportunity to research, theorize, and sit in awe of God’s majesty and creation—and, as is the case more and more today, exercise our critical thinking skills.
If Nasa has indeed found (more) ice on Mars, it would neither be a major surprise nor a matter of worry for young-earth creationists. After all, we’ve known for a long time that there is plenty of ice on Mars (in the polar ice caps) and that a permafrost layer probably extends considerably beyond the ice caps.
In fact, this particular icy discovery should cause a cold feeling for evolutionists, who would much prefer to find liquid water but instead have found only this scant evidence of subsurface ice. And of course, the very idea that liquid or frozen water on Mars is a “big thing” comes straight from the evolutionary faith that where there’s water, life will follow. In fact, that’s the entire premise of today’s Martian landers.
[Crazy assertion in 3..2...1...]
The ice on Mars may possibly be, in part, a frozen remnant of a global Mars flood, which has been theorized by some creationists to have occurred near the same time as Noah’s flood—perhaps even as an extension of it. Even today, the Martian ice caps contain enough water to cover the entire Martian surface if the ice were to melt.
(This gem of Funditude comes to us from the "good" people who brought us the "Creation Museum" in KY, this is their July-September issue)
MONSTER RECORD
A partial fossil of what is presumed to be the largest known marine reptile has been found on a Norwegian island in the Arctic. Dubbed "the Monster," it appears to have been 50 feet long, larger than any other known pliosaur, including the well-known kronosaurs.
One expert suggested that The Monster would be able to "pick up a small car in its jaws and bite it in half."
Creationists suggest that biblical references to "sea monsters" such as Leviathan, could have been pliosaurs or plesiosaurs. Other old accounts of sea monsters, found across the globe, could be evidence that monsterous sea reptiles did not die out millions of years before humans appeared but were observed by people in relatively recent times.
Now here is the problem. If there are intelligent beings on other planets, then they would have been affected by the fall of Adam because the whole creation was affected. So these beings would have to die because death was the penalty for sin. One day their planet will be destroyed by fire during God’s final judgment, but they cannot have salvation because that blessing is given only to humans.
(just picking few pearls from a great article)
This is the fallacy of bifurcation (false dilemma). Some secular astronomers argue that there are only two options: steady state and big bang; steady state cannot justify the cosmic microwave background, so they conclude the big bang must be true. But, of course, there is a third alternative: the Bible is true.
...
"If supernatural explanations are allowed, which would we use?"
How about the one written by the God who actually created the universe, knows everything, never makes mistakes, and never lies?
...
Actually, every experiment we perform demonstrates the truth of the Christian worldview, and the falsehood of others, such as Buddhism and Hinduism.
It is very important to understand that creation is not actually “supported” by science; rather science is supported by creation.
[AIG makes a point, once again. Plus I love the name.]
For the author to claim that truth exists in order to establish his argument as being valid, he must have an objective source of authority to determine what is true. The naturalistic worldview of evolution cannot afford such an objective source. The Bible can.
The atheist might respond, “Laws of logic are conventions made up by man.” But conventions are (by definition) conventional. That is, we all agree to them and so they work—like driving on the right side of the road. But if laws of logic were conventional, then different cultures could adopt different laws of logic (like driving on the left side of the road).
[Point of fact: 34% of the world drives on the left.]
In fact, if evolution were true, there wouldn’t be any rational reason to believe it! If life is the result of evolution, then it means that an evolutionist’s brain is simply the outworking of millions of years of random-chance processes. The brain would simply be a collection of chemical reactions that have been preserved because they had some sort of survival value in the past. If evolution were true, then all the evolutionist’s thoughts are merely the necessary result of chemistry acting over time. Therefore, an evolutionist must think and say that “evolution is true” not for rational reasons, but as a necessary consequence of blind chemistry.
[the idiocy, circular logic, and distortion continues ad infinitum.]
The biblical worldview makes sense of science; secular worldviews do not.
We point at nature and life and teach our kids to sing “All things bright and beautiful! The Lord God made them all!” In reality, maybe we should be teaching them to sing “All things maimed and mangled! The Lord God cursed them all!”
If the Flood were local, why was the Ark big enough to hold all the different kinds of vertebrate land animals? If only Mesopotamian animals were aboard, the Ark could have been much smaller.14
A huge spot on Mars found last year by astronomers had some scientists wondering whether it contained life. Evolutionists have speculated that this hole or cavern “might be the sort of place that could support life.” The desire to find life on Mars is so strong that even a hole is promising!
Meanwhile, a 2018 European Space Agency mission—to find signs of life on hundreds of extrasolar planets—is being planned. Not surprisingly, it’s called the “Darwin mission.” Billions of dollars will be spent on what will be a fruitless search for extraterrestrial life, rather than to believe the ultimate Extraterrestrial placed us here.
A dozen seashell necklaces (or perhaps bracelets) were discovered in a cave in Morocco, North Africa. The discovery surprised archaeologists who dated the ornamental jewelry at 82,000 years old but previously believed that humans had not developed such art until around 50,000 years ago.
Dating such discoveries has led some Christians to wonder when God created humans. Many “progressive creationists” have gradually pushed their range of dates back: 10,000–25,000 years, then 10,000–35,000, up to 60,000, and sometimes up to 100,000 years.
A clear reading of Genesis, on the other hand, shows that mankind was created about 6,000 years ago, but all vestiges of the earliest cultures were destroyed during the Flood. These artifacts, found in post-Flood geologic formations, must be less than 4,500 years old.
The dating methods of secular archaeologists are based on incorrect assumptions, and the key to correct dates is the infallible Word of God.
Take, for example, the situation my four-year-old friend Sarah found herself in. According to Sarah, “My friend told me that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, but I told her that wasn’t true.” Even at four years old, Sarah was able to pick up on a false view because her parents had instilled in her the difference between what’s wrong and what’s right.
...
Just as we use the Bible to teach our children morality, so we need to use the Bible to teach our children history by tearing down for them the wrong view of history and building up the right (biblical) view of history.
Evolution is anti-science and anti-knowledge. If evolution were true, science would not be possible because there would be no reason to accept the uniformity of nature upon which all science and technology depend.
[Georgia critically reviewing scientific papers...again]
Although the title of the paper is, “Recent Acceleration of Human Adaptive Evolution,” the evidence instead supports the idea of adaptation, not evolution. Adaptation implies changes in the genetic makeup which allow an organism to survive better in a given environment. The changes or mutations do not add information but instead alter current genetic information which offers no mechanism for the common descent of all living things from single-celled ancestors. Perhaps the authors define evolution as “change in genetic makeup over time” in which case their title is accurate.
In addition, if we evolved from an ape-like ancestor and are nothing more than animals ourselves, where do we draw the line concerning who has “rights”? Maybe the apes and chimps in the zoo should also have the rights afforded to people. And why stop there because then we are discriminating against the lowly bacteria, with whom we share a common ancestry. Humans would be guilty of committing genocide every time they washed their hands with anti-bacterial soap!
[Winner of the "Easier is always better"-award]
In my new studies into the question of origins, I came across so many things that were confusing to the evolutionary scientists, such as “older” aged rock layers being on top of the “younger” layers. They couldn’t explain it easily, but creationist research could.
But perhaps the best evidence that the Bible is true is that if it were not, the laws of logic and morality—and even our own existence—would not be possible.
Mutations in the ebg system are clearly not an example of evolution but mutation and natural selection allowing for adaptation to the environment.
[in a previous paragraph, he mentions how all natural explanations fail]:
Curiously, the magi seem to have been the only ones who saw the star—or at least the only ones who understood its meaning. Israel’s King Herod had to ask the magi when the star had appeared (Matthew 2:7). If the magi
alone saw the star, this further supports the notion that the star of Bethlehem was a supernatural manifestation from God rather than a common star, which would have been visible to all.
[If the magi alone saw the star, maybe it means the story was sodding made up??]
