THE GOD LOWDOWN

CHRISTIANITY: WHY IT'S AWESOME

2011-08-13T17:02:00.000-07:00

Once I arrived at the conclusion that there must be a Creator behind all existence, I then had to determine which world religion most accurately reflected the true nature of God. The first thing I noticed about Christianity was the abundance of historical evidence and eyewitness testimony for the events recorded in the New Testament. This stands in stark contrast to other religions which rely primarily on a single person's account of a private revelation from God, holy texts delivered by God to a single individual in a private encounter, ancient tales passed down through generations via oral tradition, etc. With the New Testament, we have multiple perspectives of eyewitness testimony recorded in manuscripts dating back to the lifetimes of those who authored them. We are not relying on writings that have been copied dozens of times through the ages. Compared to other ancient manuscripts of that time, including the historical records of ancient Rome, this is extraordinarily unique.

But more importantly than this is the unique message of Christianity. Look at any other religion and, at the core, you will find a common theme: that in order to make things "right" with God or to earn "enlightenment", you must work at it. You must earn God's favor through good deeds, by following a list of rules and observing certain restrictions, by not eating various foods, by practicing a specific ritual on a regular basis, whatever. Only after you have proven yourself to God will God love you and reward you.

Christianity breaks this mold. At the core of Christianity is a message of immediate forgiveness, freely given. A recognition that we humans are inherently flawed, and that's ok with God. Christianity recognizes that we can never be perfect, no matter how hard we try. We can work at it all our lives and we will never get there.

In Christianity, we find a God who loves us by default. There is nothing we must do to earn it, and there is nothing we can do to erase it. Everyone gets into the club the same way, everyone is invited, and the price of admission has already been paid. Not a bad deal if you ask me!

For those of you who are Christian and attending church, I urge you to closely examine how your church presents the Christian message. If your church doesn't communicate this central theme, and if it doesn't embody this theme in its attitude, then leave. You're better off taking your family to the park on Sunday morning. Most churches have unfortunately allowed the common trait of other religions -- the notion that God's favor must be earned -- to creep into their thinking and their way of doing things. This is partly why so many of us have become disenchanted with Christianity today. As we drift further away from the uniqueness of Christianity, and drift further towards other religions, the problem of disenchantment will only get worse. We've got to get things back on track and rediscover what makes Christianity so awesome. It is superior to other religions because it is grounded in truth, and it produces superior results when adopted and applied correctly. Let's not forget that.

WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL?

2011-07-06T09:49:00.000-07:00

So the Casey Anthony verdict is causing quite a stir around the country today. It seems everyone except the jury was convinced Casey was responsible for her 2-year-old daughter's death.

I wonder how you professed Atheists feel about this case. Are you as outraged as everyone else? You shouldn't be. If you adopt the Atheistic view completely, and apply it consistently to all your values and beliefs, you can't find any fault in what Casey Anthony did.

So she probably killed her daughter Caylee. So what? What value did Caylee really have? Caylee was just like the rest of us: a mere fluke, a product of random chance, consisting only of physical matter, here on Earth for no real purpose except to propagate human DNA. A tiny, insignificant speck in a Universe that is headed towards eventual burnout and destruction. We, as living organisms, are meaningless. And anything we do in this life is ultimately meaningless.

Besides, now that Casey has escaped the wrath of our justice system, who can say she did anything really "wrong"? How can you, the Atheist, impose your moral views upon Casey? Thanks to Evolution, each of us is genetically programmed with a sense of right and wrong. But this programming, just like eye color and hair color, can vary. How is your morality any better than Casey's?

Am I making sense? Am I helping you Atheists feel better about the Casey Anthony verdict? If not, then I have one last observation that might help:

Casey Anthony simply waited 2 years to have an abortion. There. Now it shouldn't bother you.

MULTIPLE UNIVERSES?

2011-05-31T19:00:00.000-07:00

One of the more popular arguments for the existence of a Creator, the "Fine-Tuning Argument" can be summarized as follows:

1. If the Universe was not caused by an intelligent being, it is here by chance, and chance is more likely to produce non-order than order. In other words, without a Creator/Designer there is a higher likelihood that our Universe would be purely random and chaotic than rich with function, rules, and structure.

2. Science tells us our Universe is not ruled by chaos. There is observable order, organization, function, and synergy in the Universe. Physical Laws govern the behavior and interaction of matter/energy and space/time. Look inside the atom and you will find a clear demonstrable example of advanced functioning. (A list of supportive examples here would fill volumes.)

3. Therefore, a Creator/Designer is the most likely explanation for these characteristics of our Universe.

It's a very simple and rational argument, based on the observable evidence around us. But, as you might imagine, Atheists have many objections. During my time of exploration on these topics, when I was "searching" for answers to the God question, I evaluated these Atheist counter-arguments. What I found was a short list of very flimsy rebuttals, based on poor logic and false assumptions. (For anyone interested in these Atheists rebuttals, and my thoughts on them, please send me an email. You can find my email address by viewing my Profile.)

Some Atheists choose to criticize the premises of the argument. But others elect to take a different approach. They agree to premise #1 and premise #2, but offer an alternate explanation: Multiverse Theory.

This theory suggests that our Universe is not alone. It is simply one of possibly trillions and trillions of multiple universes. What this theory offers the Atheist is a convenient way to deal with the problem of probability. In a sea of trillions of Universes, there are far greater odds that a functional Universe will emerge. Therefore, there is no reason to assume a Designer is responsible.

This concept is a life-saver for the Atheist backed into a corner by the Fine-Tuning Argument.

There is one major problem, however. The concept of "Multiple Universes" is merely that: a concept. There is no observable or empirical evidence for Multiverses. None whatsoever. Only highly speculative suggestions that a Multiverse could possibly explain certain phenomena. And notice the typical Atheist hypocrisy: Many Atheists argue that Intelligent Design is not "science" because it cannot be empirically verified, but neither can Multiverse theory.

How can Atheists so freely accept Multiverse theory with no observable evidence, but reject Intelligent Design? It requires intellectual suicide. Such behavior reeks of desperation and emotional bias against the notion of a Creator.

But Atheists are commonly motivated by emotional bias, so I suppose we shouldn't be surprised.

WONDERS OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM

2011-03-31T19:05:00.000-07:00

"It seems extraordinary that such a well ordered system could have come into being spontaneously."

Couldn't have said it better myself.

KOREA AT NIGHT

2011-02-09T08:44:00.000-08:00

I know this has nothing to do with Atheism or Christianity, but it's my blog so I'll post it anyway.

All the debate in America about Liberal vs. Conservative, Big Government vs. Small Government, Socialism vs. Capitalism, or Democrats vs. Republicans, can be summed up perfectly in this single image:

A QUOTE FOR CHRISTIANS

2011-01-28T06:06:00.000-08:00

“I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.”
- Ghandi

What a powerful statement. It seems that so many of us "Christians" simply don't understand what it means to be one. Christianity should not be a religion. Religion is a man-made thing. Jesus did not come to create a religion. He was steadfastly opposed to the primary religion of his day, and he was killed for it.

Jesus spoke a unique message about something entirely new: a meaningful personal relationship with God. He did not construct a system of rituals, rules, or routines to "earn God's favor" or "become enlightened" as other religions do. His message was unique. It's not about kneeling a certain way, reciting a specific chant, banning certain foods, wearing certain clothes, confessional booths, etc. It's about getting rid of that type of nonsense, and simply connecting to a God who says "You're already in the club."

THE IMPACT OF JESUS

2011-01-27T07:28:00.000-08:00

"Jesus of Nazareth, without money and arms, conquered more millions than Alexander the Great, Caesar, Mohammed, and Napoleon; without science and learning, he shed more light on things human and divine than all philosophers and scholars combined; without the eloquence of school, he spoke such words of life as were never spoken before or since, and produced effects which lie beyond the reach of orator or poet; without writing a single line, he set more pens in motion, and furnished themes for more sermons, orations, discussions, learned volumes, works of art, and songs of praise than the whole army of great men of ancient and modern times."

- Philip Schaff

WHAT GOOD IS "RIGHT & WRONG"?

2010-07-18T18:22:00.000-07:00

I got some interesting comments from some Atheists to my last post regarding a YouTube video (see prior post for video link). Here was my response:

Finally some Atheists have the courage to face the facts. Well done.

As Adam said: "In simple terms, the interrogator is correct; there is no right or wrong."

That is precisely the lesson to be learned here. With no ultimate moral authority (God), right and wrong is 100% subjective. The dangers of that viewpoint should be obvious, to any reasonably intelligent mind. For instance, under Atheism, there is nothing "wrong" with the Holocaust.

NSC, you ask what good my God-based morality is. With regard to the hypothetical situation presented in the video, it's simple. When asked to provide one good reason why he shouldn't be killed, the victim could have said, "Because it violates God's moral law." That may have satisfied the killer. But if the killer responded with "I don't think God exists", then the victim could have argued "But you can't be sure. And killing me wouldn't be a wise thing to do, just in case there is a God you must ultimately answer to."

The killer asked for "one good reason". Those are much better reasons than anything that can possibly be offered within an Atheistic framework.

Now, moving beyond this hypothetical situation, a God-based morality offers infinite benefits that Atheism does not.

For instance, is human life valuable? Should it be protected? Should an orphaned starving child be cared for, or ignored?

If Atheism is applied properly, the ultimate conclusion is that human life has zero value. Human life is an accident. The human species is simply a product of random mutations, and each individual human is simply a fluke birth.

On the other hand, if Christianity is applied properly, the ultimate conclusion is that human life has incredible value. Human life is a gift. We are here on purpose, not by accident.

To see these different philosophies in action, look no further than the topic of abortion. It is no surprise that those who gravitate towards Atheism or Secular Humanism typically support abortion, while those who gravitate towards Theism and Christianity are typically opposed to abortion. Neither side will budge, because they have a fundamentally different view of human life.

CRUEL LOGIC

2010-07-17T07:09:00.000-07:00

I came across a video that perfectly illustrates the problem of morality and "right & wrong" that plagues Atheism. It's got "Buster" from Arrested Development.

I challenge you Atheists to watch this video and come up with a good rebuttal. You know, a rebuttal that is logical and coherent.

Here's the video:

BAD CHRISTIAN, GOOD ATHEIST

2010-07-14T19:18:00.000-07:00

I plan on posting a more lengthy analysis of this soon, but here's the short version to get your mental juices flowing.

Atheists love to point out various evil deeds done by "Christians" or religious folk. So as much as possible, they cite examples of terrible things done in the name of God. "Look how dangerous religion is!" they say. "Imagine how much better off we'd be without religion!"

But, as always, there are several layers of problems with this thinking:

1. Why focus entirely on the negative? For every 1 example of a "Christian" or group of "Christians" doing something wrong, there are hundreds of examples of real Christians doing something right and having a positive impact on the world. And you know what? You'll never notice those Christians, because they aren't looking for attention, and you aren't seeking them out.

2. If your friend tells you he's a vegetarian, and then you see him stuffing his face with a T-bone steak, would you conclude that vegetarians are all liars who actually eat meat? Of course not! Obviously your friend is not truly a vegetarian. So why, when someone who claims to be Christian does something terrible, do you attack Christianity for being terrible?

3. The basic concept of God has done wonders for humanity. The good far outweighs the bad. Eliminate God completely, and you eliminate several key underlying assumptions that greatly enhance and support human rights, liberty, and purpose. For instance, the basic assumption that each human is a special creation. The opposite assumption, which is promoted by evolution, is that each human is a random accident. Think about that, and analyze the implications of both viewpoints.

4. At the core of every example provided for the "atrocities of religion" is the same basic element: someone who claims to follow God, but in reality doesn't. Such people are NOT Christians, despite what they may say. They are simply not applying Christianity properly. The fact is, when you apply true Christianity, the outcome is always positive.

Likewise, there are tons of "Atheists" who don't apply Atheism properly. If you properly follow Atheism to its ultimate logical conclusion (that we are all here by accident and right/wrong is completely subjective), the sky is the limit for how selfish you can be. Why be honest? Why not cheat on your spouse? Why not neglect your kids? Why not murder, as long as you can avoid getting caught? Why not slaughter millions of Jews like Hitler did?

Hitler had ties to the Catholic church, yes. But was he a Christian? Of course not. He did not apply any principles of Christianity whatsoever. He did, however, try to "purge the gene pool" to accelerate evolution. And he obviously placed no importance or value on human life. So Hitler made a much better Atheist than Theist.

A THEISTIC WORLD

2010-05-04T07:31:00.000-07:00

Random thought of the day: Atheists are ok with Atheism only because they live in a Theistic world. Thus far, our planet has been largely managed and operated under a predominately Theistic outlook. The underlying assumption, therefore, is that human life is not an accident, but a special creation. Furthermore, there is an ultimate moral authority all people are accountable to. Lastly, since all humans are a special creation, each individual -- no matter the gender, race, or wealth class -- is born with total freedom and liberty. This is granted not from a king or government, but from God Himself (this is most evident in the system established by the Founding Fathers of the United States).

If Atheism became the dominant idealogy across the world, all of these concepts would fall apart. Through the lens of Atheism, all humanity is merely an accident. And since we are a product of Evolution, it makes perfect sense that some elements of our species would be further "progressed" along the Evolutionary line than others. Furthermore, as covered in my prior blog posts, we would lose the concept of an ultimate moral authority. As such, morality becomes 100% entirely subjective. It is impossible to label any act as "wrong", since any behavior is merely a product of either a) genetic programming or b) social or cultural influences on concepts of morality.

Under this framework, the Holocaust becomes perfectly legitimate. First, human life has no inherent worth, since we are merely accidents. Second, Hitler was merely doing his part to accelerate the natural process of Darwinism by eradicating what he believed to be inferior genetics in the Jewish race. Lastly, it is impossible to condemn his acts as "wrongful" given that your individual view of morality need not apply to him.

Who wants to live in a world like that? Certainly not Atheists.

BIBLE IN THE TOILET

2010-04-29T05:48:00.001-07:00

This is a great example of the hate I describe in my previous post. This picture was posted by one of the many bitter, angry Atheists at the site "Unreasonable Faith". In case you can't tell, it is a Bible being flushed down the toilet.

Nobody who arrives at his/her beliefs through calm logical analysis would behave this way. This is clearly a childlike tantrum. It is like a toddler screaming "I hate you!" to his father, then falling on the floor, kicking and screaming.

WHY THE HATE?

2010-04-29T05:12:00.000-07:00

YouTube finally figured out that the "copyright infringement" claim against me was a fraud, and they have restored my videos. I wonder how long it will be until some Atheist does this again.

This whole experience got me thinking. I've been mulling over the general animosity that Atheists display towards Theism, and especially Christianity. This recent censorship attack against me is just one example. I've had hundreds of emails and comments that are very angry, very bitter, and insulting. I would estimate that 75% of the stuff I get from Atheists contain some element or elements of hate. And I know I'm not alone. This Atheist hate is everywhere. All you gotta do is look for it. Obviously, if you're an Atheist, you probably aren't going to notice it, and if you do, you'll come up with some wonderful excuses for why it's ok. To see what I'm talking about, read some of Richard Dawkins's stuff. Read some Atheist blogs. Watch some Atheist videos. Pay attention to Atheist comments on Youtube.

And that's what caught my attention. Until now, I accepted this hate as simply a part of the package deal. Atheists disagree with us, so therefore their behavior is to be expected. But then I really analyzed what's going on, and I realized that Atheists go WAY over the top. Their attitude towards Christianity goes above and beyond what is reasonable for a person who simply doesn't believe in God.

If I was an Atheist, I would look at Theism without any bitterness or anger. I would simply disagree with it. Calmly and respectfully. I wouldn't become enraged and the mere mention of the word God. I wouldn't spend time writing angry comments to Christian videos on Youtube. I would simply...not believe in God.

You see, the reality is, The Bible – and by extension, Christianity in general – offers some pretty good advice, even if you don't believe in God. An Atheist can still get something out of it. If you take the Bible, and strip away all the God stuff, you'd still have something useful. There's a ton in there about how to manage your finances, how to raise your kids, how to treat people, how to deal with stress, the importance of honesty, humility, love & forgiveness, and yes even the dangers of organized religion. (After all, it was the religious people who had Jesus killed.)

I mean, you could repackage The Bible without the God stuff, and it would probably be a smash-hit, runaway bestseller overnight.

So what's the deal? Where exactly does this Atheist hate come from? You know, psychologists have described hate as the twin emotion of love. They say hate is not the opposite of love. Indifference is. So Atheists should simply be indifferent to Christianity. They should simply ignore it. And when they hear someone like me saying "I believe in God", they should just shrug their shoulders and be on their merry way.

But that's not what we see them doing, is it? And what can that teach us about the true nature of Atheism? Based on the evidence, it sure seems like Atheism is not so much a lack of belief in something, as it is an angry rebellion against something. And it's hard to be angry against something that isn't real. I don't see Atheists getting angry about the Tooth Fairy or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But they do get very angry at the mention of God.

Think about it.

ATHEIST CENSORSHIP

2010-04-14T10:55:00.000-07:00

My YouTube videos have been taken down, thanks to a fraudulent copyright infringement complaint filed by "FrontPage Media". Of course "FrontPage Media" does not exist, nor does anyone own the copyright to videos of me talking to my camera in my basement.

This is obviously an attack by a person or group who don't like what I'm saying. It is an attempt at censorship. I actually take it as a huge compliment. It proves that my arguments have merit. They have an impact. If Atheists are so distraught by my videos, I must be doing something right.

THE PROBLEM OF MORALITY, Part 1

2010-04-05T07:30:00.000-07:00

Well, I finally got around to doing a new video! In this vid, I examine the inability of Atheism to properly explain the existence of human morality. I'll be doing a follow up soon where I tackle the moral implications of an Atheistic viewpoint.

QUANTUM PHYSICS!

2010-03-08T15:14:00.000-08:00

So my agnostic friend has been struggling with the question of how "all of this" got here. With no external cause, the birth of our Universe poses some obvious scientific (and logical) problems. How could something come from nothing?

Atheists struggle with this as well, and it is amazing to watch the absurd and flimsy arguments they prop up to deal with this.

But more and more Atheists are able to finally sleep at night, thanks to Quantum Physics. You see, the study of Quantum Physics has revealed a hidden world at the atomic level, where the normal commonsense rules of cause and effect do not apply. Single particles of matter can pop into existence out of nowhere, then disappear at random.

Yay! Rejoice! The loophole has been found! Now we have scientific proof that something CAN come from nothing, which means our Universe does not require an external cause!

Not so fast. In the Atheist's desperate attempt to escape the obvious conclusions, he/she makes a HUGE leap of faith. The problem is that the Atheist is comparing apples with oranges. Or a better example might be "comparing an apple seed with 100 trillion orange trees".

Because what we have observed is SINGLE PARTICLES of matter behaving this way. Not MASSIVE NUMBERS OF PARTICLES on a huge scale, all at the exact same time.

Plus, the birth of our Universe does not deal strictly with matter. We also have energy, space, and time. All four of these things began together, in perfect synchronization.

My new YouTube video covers this topic in more depth:

WHAT DID WE EXPECT?

2010-02-22T19:43:00.000-08:00

About half the emails I get from Atheists contain the phrase "God of the Gaps". Atheists are very good at collective parroting of the same message over and over again, just like they've been taught to do (very similar to fundamentalist religious folk).

For those that don't know, "God of the Gaps" refers to the human tendency to attribute all unknowns to a deity. The sun, the moon, lightning, etc. Atheists believe that as science has advanced and uncovered the mechanics behind how things work, God becomes unnecessary.

This has led to the myth that God and Science are at odds. We are told you must accept one or the other. They cannot coexist. Sadly, many Theists buy into this myth.

But I don't. When I look at Science, I see God at work.

It seems to me that the more we learn about the mechanics behind life and the Universe, the more we see the engineering of a Creator. I mean, what did we expect to find once we started digging? Did we expect everything to be held together by rubber bands and duct tape? Or a bunch of Silly Putty?

It's a bit like a toddler looking at a car. He has no idea how it works or functions. It simply does, and it is amazing to him. Then one day he grows up, pops the hood, and figures out how the machine functions. Should he then accept that the car was not designed by intelligence, simply because he is able to comprehend the mechanics of it?

The famous geneticist Francis Collins, who helped crack the human genome while head of the National Center for Human Genome Research, has said that his acceptance of God was "intellectually inescapable". His book "The Language of God" is a great read, and speaks to the exact issue I describe. While examining the code of human DNA, he could not help but marvel at the precision and complexity, and was more convinced than ever of God's hand at work.

Atheists say Science disproves God. But in reality, Science offers us a glimpse into God's brilliance.

NEW VIDEOS!

2010-02-22T19:41:00.000-08:00

ATHEISTS ARE CONFUSED

2010-02-13T19:47:00.000-08:00

As I deal with Atheists more and more (on this blog and my YouTube channel), I am discovering how confused they are. It seems they can't get their stories straight.

On YouTube, an Atheist posted a video about me in which he attempted to refute my arguments about the origins of the Universe by stating that there was NOTHING before the Universe. So I rightfully responded to his statements. Then I got comments from Atheists saying "We don't believe there was NOTHING before the Universe!" Well guys, which one is it? Some of you say there was nothing, some of you say the opposite.

More recently, I pulled an explanation for the birth of our Universe from TalkOrigins (a favorite Atheist website) in one of my recent posts here. Then I got comments from Atheists saying "We don't believe guesses like that!" Well, since I copied the text from an ATHEIST WEBSITE, it seems that many of you do.

I could go on and on. Why should I embrace Atheism when it seems its followers can't get their stories straight??

SOMETHING FROM NOTHING

2010-02-05T10:29:00.000-08:00

I've been exchanging emails with an Agnostic friend. Regarding the origin of our Universe, and the "something from nothing" argument, he went poking around on TalkOrigins for the standard Atheist comeback. This is what he found and submitted to me...

Claim: The first law of thermodynamics says matter/energy cannot come from nothing. Therefore, the universe itself could not have formed naturally.

Response: Formation of the universe from nothing need not violate conservation of energy. The gravitational potential energy of a gravitational field is a negative energy. When all the gravitational potential energy is added to all the other energy in the universe, it might sum to zero.

Now for my response.

If you're an Atheist, answer me honestly - Do you understand any of that? Does that really make sense to you? Probably not. Only physicists can comprehend this type of stuff, and even for those guys, it is highly theoretical. There is no consensus on the issue. And notice the phrase “MIGHT sum to zero”.

But Atheists are more than willing to embrace this theory (or others like it). Why? Simple. Because it sounds fancy, and because it fits their pre-decided view that there is no God.

It is not the theory itself that is important. It is the implication that is important.

Example conversation:

Atheist: “Hey Mr. Scientist, I’m struggling with the issue of how the universe could come from nothing.”
Scientist: “So am I. But I know there can’t possibly be a Creator.”
Atheist: “Exactly!”
Scientist: “Therefore, I’ve come up with a theory. The quantum flux mechanics of gravitational string synergy MIGHT POSSIBLY negate the probability of full ionization, thus reducing the requirement of atomic bonding. Maybe.”
Atheist: “Uh….”
Scientist: “Do you understand?”
Atheist: “Well, no. But does that theory mean there probably is no Creator?”
Scientist: “Yep.”
Atheist: “Then I love it! Sign me up!"

Sigh.

RIGHT & WRONG

2010-02-02T06:57:00.001-08:00

I've been thinking about “right & wrong” in a God-free world. Truthfully, those words have no place in such a world. Everything becomes 100% opinion. There cannot be “right”. There cannot be “wrong”. Anyone who does something “wrong” is simply acting according to his/her genetic programming. A compulsive liar is only doing what comes natural. Same as the rapist. Same as the child molester. Same as Hitler.

There can be a general consensus by people as to what “should be done” or what “should not be done”, but that’s about it. Sure, you can establish laws and punishment for those people who don’t follow the rules, but you really can’t fault anyone who breaks the law in the hopes that he/she won’t get caught.

And you certainly can’t fault the people who engage in “wrong” behavior there is no punishment for. If some guy has an affair with your wife, what’s “wrong” with that? If somebody intentionally scams you into a bad investment, what’s wrong with that? If somebody is mean to you at work and puts you down constantly, what’s wrong with that? If somebody cuts you off in traffic and gives you the finger, what’s wrong with that?

Without an ultimate moral lawgiver (God) there is no ultimate “right and wrong”.

If you’re going to be an Atheist, you should accept Atheism honestly, and take the whole package as it comes: moral ambiguity, racism, homophobia, and an existence with no ultimate meaning.

WE DON'T KNOW

2009-10-28T11:50:00.000-07:00

I really hesitate to even discuss evolution, because it is really irrelevant to the conclusions I have drawn. If the Universe cannot exist without a supernatural Creator, then what is the point in discussing anything else?

But I’ll discuss it anyway. One thing that strikes me is the abundance of “we don’t know” type of speak when it comes to evolution. I simply want someone to explain to me the logistics of how random mutations succeed in thriving in the gene pool. For instance - If my son was somehow born with a strange appendage that was seemingly useless, but might one day become a wing in future generations, that appendage would be “erased” through subsequent generational breeding, unless my son and every one of his descendants managed to mate with others with the exact same random mutation. How does evolution get around this? Can someone explain? Anyone?? I have never seen a good answer for this, and it is a perfectly valid question.

The common response to questions like this is, “We don’t know yet. But we do know evolution happened.”

Huh??

In what other areas of science is so much faith put into something that cannot be fully explained?

Another observation: Why is “we don’t know” an acceptable answer from atheists and evolutionists? When they pose critical questions to theists, they do not accept that answer as valid. For example:

Atheist: “If there is a good and loving God, why do bad things happen to good people?”
Theist: “I don’t know.”
Atheist: “Ha! Gotcha! You lose!”

Or they question design decisions: “Why would God build human bodies so imperfectly?” or “Why would he create disease?” Theists are not allowed to answer “we don’t know” to these questions. If we do, that is seen as admitting defeat.

We must have a good answer to EVERY POSSIBLE QUESTION. But atheists don’t hold themselves to the same standard.

THE CULTURE OF SCIENCE: Part 2

2009-10-05T12:10:00.000-07:00

The content of my last post was essentially word for word what I sent to a friend of mine who embraces Evolution as viable. His response was to ask, "What's the difference between the evidence you speak of and the evidence in the news? How is the alternative evidence more real?"

I responded as follows:

I never said the mainstream evidence isn’t “real”. I’m just trying to paint a picture for you of the climate in the scientific community, so you can better assess what they present as “fact”.

The fossil evidence of “Ardi” is obviously real. It exists. But you must keep in mind that the conclusions drawn about Ardi – and all other fossil evidence – are drawn within the framework of a system that:

A. Interprets all evidence under the premise that Evolution is fact.
B. Rejects and ignores evidence that cannot be interpreted to “fit” properly.

There is virtually no difference between the “alternative” evidence I speak of, and the Ardi fossils. It’s all simply rock and fossil evidence. Picture a giant pile of various items – fossilized footprints, ancient tools buried in rock, skeletal remains, etc. Some of this evidence could be interpreted to support Evolution. Some cannot. Now picture a gathering of “elite experts” converging on this pile of evidence. Watch as they sift through the pile, shouting in excitement as they come across the fossils that fit the Evolution mold, and tossing aside the ones that don’t. Now watch the elite experts at their big news conference, showing off their discoveries to the clueless media and the mass public - a public more interested in American Idol and celebrity gossip than actually doing any homework of their own to determine if they are being given the whole story.

THE CULTURE OF SCIENCE

2009-10-02T07:56:00.000-07:00

News flash! New fossil evidence shines new light on evolution! Read the story about the "Ardi" discovery here: Oldest Human Skeleton

You can’t talk objectively about evolution without also deeply examining the culture of science. As I’ve said, for some reason we tend to hold scientists up as benevolent perfect beings, 100% void of bias, and always completely objective. And of course the same applies to the scientific community as a whole.

But that’s not the truth. In every large collective endeavor – politics, education, religion, and even science – there are the “accepted” and “approved” positions. There are dogmas. To continue as a member in good standing, you must toe the line. Stray from that, and you will be treated harshly. You cannot question or rebel against the “correct” line of thinking. Doing so will get you labeled as a fringe kook, worthy of mockery and contempt.

There are certain things you aren’t allowed to say in the political climate. For example – A large portion of our citizens are completely ignorant about politics. They choose to be uninformed about current events and our government. Yet they show up every four years and are allowed to vote. Their voice is given equal weight as someone like me who watches the political climate closely, is deeply concerned about our nation’s issues, is informed on the issues, and engaged in the talk of solutions. How is that right? We are all required to prove our competency before we can drive a car, correct? Shouldn’t the same be required for voting? Shouldn’t we all be required to pass a short political quiz before entering the voting booth?

But that will never happen, because any leader who suggests such a thing will be immediately labeled a “racist”. This is because mostly minorities would fail to pass the competency test. So he/she would be destroyed by the political machine and media.

There are also certain things you aren’t allowed to say in the education scene. For example – Do we need forced government school at all? All the talk about education reform revolves around more schooling for kids, more money for schools, more teachers, etc. Basically more and more and more school. The solution is always to increase the feeding of the enormous public school beast. Nobody is allowed to seriously question the premise that we need the beast at all! Yet our country did amazingly well for a long time without it. It wasn’t until the late 1800’s that the school machine was forced upon its citizens. That’s right, there was no public demand for “public school”. The public, by and large, rejected it. Parents were outraged at the mere thought of handing their children over to complete strangers every day of the week. But it was forced upon them anyway, sometimes at gun point (I’m not kidding).

Now imagine if the president of the National Education Association seriously suggested dismantling the current government-run school model, and to move towards financing charter schools, homeschooling, online schools, private schools, and other alternatives? Think of the horror!

Likewise, there are certain things you aren’t allowed to say in the religious climate. Need I even give an example??

And now we come to science. What makes you think science is not guilty of the same nonsense? There are countless examples of well-educated, smart scientists who were ostracized by the scientific community, kicked out of universities, denied grant funding, etc. Why? Because they had the audacity to pose legitimate questions about evolution. Now I’m not talking about Creationist scientists here. I’m talking about scientists in “good standing” who simply began to question some of the basic assumptions and premises of evolution.

Scientists are humans, and like all humans they have a desire to “fit in” and be “respected”. They also have a desire to be employed and receive funding, obviously. To do so means that you must not stray from the pre-accepted truths. Much like the flat earth scientists of long ago, the scientific community does not tolerate dissent.

And I won’t even get into the discussion about how scientists – like all esteemed achievers – are among the elite, and the more elevated you are as a person, the more appeal a God-free world has. Thus, they are more drawn to Atheistic world views.

So when new fossils are discovered, the fossils are ALWAYS looked at through the goggles of evolution. There are no exceptions. Every fossil discovered MUST be related to some other fossil by evolution. Questioning that premise will earn you a swift kick in the rear, and you will be shown the door.

I have read several books and articles on legitimate fossil evidence that doesn’t fit the accepted “facts” of evolution. And guess what? The evidence doesn’t fit with fundamental Creationism either! I’m talking about evidence that humans have been around much, much, much longer than we are told. So long ago that evolution could not explain our origins, given the time constraints. How does the scientific community respond to this non-conforming evidence? Well, how did they respond to the first round earth evidence??

So personally, I yawn at everything “mainstream”. I know I’m more likely to find truth on the fringe. So I am very politically incorrect, I’m a Christian who does not support organized religion, and I’m a staunch defender of homeschooling and opponent of government school. I also don’t subscribe to evolution, nor fundamental Creationism that says the earth is 10,000 years old.

HUMILITY

2009-08-11T06:07:00.000-07:00

I recently got an email from an angry Atheist who had this to say:

Here is how I view this argument. We are two cavemen and we're sitting outside our cave. We see lightning. Suddenly you say "wow, the thunder god is amazing". I say there is no thunder god. You say "where does it come from?" I say "well I don't know". You say "ha! I win!"

My response would be:

Here is how I view this argument. We both walk into a room and find a 2000-piece jigsaw puzzle assembled perfectly on the floor. Suddenly you say, "Wow, isn't it cool how that puzzle got assembled by accident?" Then I have you committed to an insane asylum.

Furthermore, I find the reference to "cavemen" interesting. Could it be that our more "primitive" ancestors had it right? Perhaps they had something that we lack today: humility. They were humble. Today, humanity is infatuated with itself. We have developed a collective delusion of grandeur. We marvel at our ourselves, and our advancements and achievements. So much so that we have put ourselves upon a throne. And it sure feels good.

Naturally, a people of this mindset would shy away from the mere notion of a "higher power". It isn't possible to see God when you're too busy seeing yourself.

But our ancestors weren't so high on themselves. They didn't have arrogance to get in the way of common-sense thinking. They observed complexity all around them. They saw organization in the ways of the world, and in life itself. And organization implies an Organizer.

Maybe we could learn something from them.

ATHEISTS: How To Make Their Heads Explode

2009-08-04T05:00:00.000-07:00

Please excuse my mediocre drawing ability. The 2 second explosion took me 30 minutes to get right.

This is basically a comical take on the topic from Video 2 (below). It's so incredibly fun to mess with atheists. Just use a tiny bit of simple logic and watch their heads blow up!

The simple truth is, either you believe a supernatural Creator caused the Big Bang, or you believe the Big Bang itself is supernatural. The challenge is getting Atheists to understand and admit this.

VIDEO 2: "Supernatural Universe"

2009-07-28T11:16:00.000-07:00

In the second video of THE GOD LOWDOWN series I tackle a critical issue. This issue is so huge, I firmly believe it trumps the debate over Evolution. No comparison.

Here's the deal. Atheists say that relying on a supernatural explanation for our existence is moronic. They mock Believers for it. They supposedly deal only with hard facts and things that abide by scientific laws, not goofy mystical nonsense about a supernatural world that can't be studied or proven.

But, as I clearly illustrate in this video, they are hypocrites. Again. Because without a supernatural Creator behind the scenes, the Big Bang itself is supernatural. When you apply the scientific law of Cause & Effect, the original "birth" of all matter and energy poses a very difficult problem for Atheists.

In the video I examine two common Atheist arguments for the Big Bang, then I dismantle them to show their fatal flaws. In the face of hard logic, the Atheist explanations for our Universe are clearly desparate attempts to deny the reality of a Creator.

In the end, the Atheistic explanation for our Universe is equally as insane, crazy, and far-fetched as the Creationist explanation.

VIDEO 1: "Emotional Appeal"

2009-07-28T10:34:00.000-07:00

You're reading the very first post on this blog. Get excited!

I hereby offically release Video 1 of THE GOD LOWDOWN series. The focus of this series is to make a solid case for the existence of God using logic and reason. No Bible verses. No emotional manipulation. No threats of Hell. Just irrefutable arguments that should leave you Atheists in a fit of rage.

This lesson is titled "Emotional Appeal". It's only 5 minutes long, so check it out:

The lesson is simple: I point out that Christianity (or any form of God belief) is commonly characterized as being an emotional "crutch". There is some truth to this, since a belief in God has serious emotional appeal for obvious reasons. Atheists cite this fact as a reason to discount Christian arguments. They also use this to paint Believers as "closed minded".

And they are right.

But there is one small problem: Atheism is also emotionally appealing, perhaps equally so. Think about it. If there is no God, there is no higher power than yourself. Humans are elevated to the highest status. Plus, with no God around to set standards, there is no ultimate right or wrong. Morality becomes subjective and completely flexible. Awesome!

I'll admit it...I'm a Christian, and even I can see the emtoional appeal in that worldview. It definitely has a draw.

So what this means is that Atheists can be just as "closed minded" as Believers, which makes them equally as prone to avoiding or reject evidence that is contrary to their beliefs! This will be a common theme in the series, as I illustrate how Atheism is guilty of all the crimes they so loudly accuse Christianity of.