EXPELLED...

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/

Do Recent Discoveries Support a Designed Universe?

Recently I came across an article entitled, “Is There Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God? How the Recent Discoveries Support a Designed Universe”. (Updated: 10 June 2004)

Dr. Walter L. Bradley claims, “My personal experience as a lecturer supports the growing openness to intelligent design theory in the academic world. Having given over 135 talks on this subject to more than 65,000 students and professors at over 65 major university campuses from 1986 to 2002, I have observed a dramatic change in audience receptivity to the idea that an intelligent designer of the universe may exist. I have noted a widespread acceptance (albeit begrudging in some quarters) that this growing body of scientific evidence demands an intellectually honest reckoning, as no exclusively naturalistic explanation seems capable of rising to the occasion.” (works sited)

Feel free to draw your own conclusions…

Blogger Suggest: 17 Evidences Against Evolution

I found an interesting list today, entitled 17 Evidences Against Evolution, which may have originated from here. I am fully aware of some of the rebuttals.

The 17 topics are as follows:

1. MOON DUST
2. MAGNETIC FIELD
3. FOSSIL RECORD
4. EMBRYONIC RECAPITULATION
5. PROBABILITY
6. SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
7. VESTIGIAL ORGANS
8. FOSSIL AND FOSSIL FUEL FORMATION
9. PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIA
10. HOMOLOGY/MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
11. DATING METHODS
12. DINOSAURS
13. SUN'S DIAMETER
14. NILE RIVER'S OVERFLOW
15. EARTH'S ROTATION
16. WRITTEN RECORD
17. THE BIBLE

I realize that some of the readers of my blog may find fault with this idea (being supporters of evolution), but I believe these writers make some valid points. And I fully believe that if one disagrees with the presented information, they should be able to discuss civilly as to why they disagree, or simply dismiss what is presented.

Faith vs. Unbelief

What I have recently learned on my blog while speaking to Atheists:

1. Acceptance of science’s theory of evolution is not belief that it is actually true, but merely holds that it is the best theory science has. The word “consensus” is used, meaning “opinion”, which cannot be used as authoritatively fact.

2. Science has not/can not prove there is no God (some assume because it is a negative), because He is out of the natural realm.

3. Science cannot prove there is a God, because He is out of the natural realm.

4. To science, God is non testable, because “The idea of a supernatural explanation (i.e. god) is not even considered, because science cannot test or falsify supernatural explanations. They are outside the bounds of science.”

5. Science does not work with absolutes, so all is relative to current knowledge which may change at any given time due to new evidence overwriting old evidence, or “consensus”, meaning “opinion”.

6. I am not to use science to prove there is a God, because science is evidence and fact not belief and faith.

With even this little bit of “consensus” I have gleaned from some of the Atheists comments from my blog, it clearly shows we merely return to the Scriptures context of Faith vs. Unbelief.

When it comes to God, there is either Faith or Unbelief. Science has no apparent voice, authority, or opinion of God, for He is “outside the bounds of science”.

Now before someone jumps at the word “unbelief”, any honest Atheist must adhere to its definition and admit that in fact they hold to “unbelief”.

Unbelief: “the state or quality of not believing; incredulity or skepticism, esp. in matters of doctrine or religious faith.”

Scripture declares, “He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”

Be forewarned that, “the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.”

Neither are you who say that you believe in God, but refuse to repent and accept Christ as Lord and Savior of your life by faith, safe, for even, “the devils also believe, and tremble.”

There must be Faith, for it is written, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

There is no more security in science for any to assume, by its inability to prove God is not, or in oneself by the inability to physically see or completely understand the things of God, to hold to a personal opinion that God does not exist.

It simply boils down to a personal choice of Faith or Unbelief.

I would ask that you, “repent ye, and believe the gospel”.

What then is the gospel?

1 Corinthians 15

1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

Islamic Creationist Sends Scientists His Evidence Against Evolution

In an article by the New York Times, “the voice of Adnan Oktar of Turkey, who, under the name Harun Yahya, has produced numerous books, videos and DVDs on science and faith, in particular what he calls the “deceit” inherent in the theory of evolution. One of his books, “Atlas of Creation,” is turning up, unsolicited, in mailboxes of scientists around the country and members of Congress, and at science museums in places like Queens and Bemidji, Minn.”

Not really any comments from me on this issue, I just found it interesting.

Science Must Acknowledge a Creator to Hold to the Big Bang

We are told, by the definition of The law of conservation of mass/matter, that “matter cannot be created nor destroyed, although it may change form.” It has been noted that “Matter can become energy, and energy can become matter, but always according to e=m2.” And it is noted that, the “Law of Conservation of Energy states: Energy cannot be created or destroyed.”

So there is a problem with the Big Bang.

Where did all of the matter/energy originate from, since the Big Bang could neither create nor destroy matter/energy?

Simple answer: A Creator.

Even now, there are those which desire to claim “another universe whose collapse appears to have given birth to the one we live in today”. Man can continue to grasp straws from the great unknown, but science returns to their own FACTS that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed.

It is merely simple to understand where the idea of the Big Bang originated from:

Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Throughout His creation, He is said to have spoken things into existence (ex. “God said”).

Just like when God spoke to Moses, concerning the 10 commandments, whereas Moses, the prophet looking unto God for His wisdom, heard His words, the people below, which murmured and disbelieved the very God which had released them from Egypt, only “saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking”, and they only wanted to hear Moses and not the voice of God.

So, as Christians, we hear the Words of God through Scripture as He spoke into existence the matter/energy and all that is, while others only hear the sounds and take what they see as the Big Bang.

Sorry science, (although I completely disagree with your ideas contrary to Scripture concerning the creation of all that is) without a Creator, you have no Big Bang.

Creation Museum: Affirms A Biblical View of Mankind’s Beginnings

A Creation Museum has just opened in Petersburg, Ky.

You can read the about page or check out their brochure.

A few excerpts from the article at Baptist Press News:

Science, the museum asserts, affirms a literal reading of Genesis. Although many secular scientists scoff at such a notion, the museum's beliefs are more mainstream than evolutionists probably wish was the case. A March Newsweek poll found that 48 percent of American adults believe God made humans "pretty much in the present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."

"What I say to evolutionists is, 'Come on, be honest,’" Ham said. "Their starting point is that there is no God. They've redesigned science. … Everybody has a starting point, and everyone needs to admit their starting point, and their starting points determine how they interpret the evidence."

The museum doesn't ignore tough questions that critics of creationism have long been asking: Where did Cain get his wife? How did dinosaurs fit on the ark? If dinosaurs did survive the flood, then why aren't they still around today?

The project also was blessed with the services of Patrick Marsh, who was the scenic designer for the Jaws and King Kong rides at Universal Studios in Orlando, Fla. A creationist himself, Marsh joined Answers in Genesis in 2001 and designed the museum, which features recreations of the Garden of Eden and a section of Noah's Ark. Ham calls it a "walk through" biblical history.

Critics already are calling the museum anti-science -- an objection Ham dismisses. He is quick to note that five Ph.D. scientists are on staff.

"The point we make to people is [that] the origins issue is different from empirical science that built Space Shuttles or put man on the moon," he said. "The origins issue is an issue regarding history -- and you don't have the history; you only have the present. We want people to distinguish those two things. If I wanted to illustrate gravity, I stand here, I hold a pen, and you watch it drop. You can't deny that that happens. But if said to you, 'Show me that hundreds of millions of years ago life arose from non-life,' you can't show me that. All you can do is look at the evidence in the present and try to interpret it in relation to the past."

Creatures Desire To Be The Creator

Science (are at least the article writer) has almost gotten it right about creation in a recent article talking about making synthetic humans for the future.

“It last happened about 3.6 billion years ago a tiny living cell emerged from the dust of the Earth. It replicated itself, and its progeny replicated themselves, and so on, with genetic twists and turns down through billions of generations. Today every living organism—every person, plant, animal and microbe—can trace its heritage back to that first cell.”

The reason I said “almost gotten it right about creation” is because they do admit that creation came from the “dust of the Earth”. Scripture teaches, “the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” [Genesis 2:7]

Where they miss it is that it was not just “a tiny living cell” that emerged all by itself, but entire fully developed mature creations by God.

It is no wonder that DNA is similar throughout humans and animals, for God was our Creator.

The fall of mankind came when they saw the forbidden tree in the Garden of Eden, which it gave them the desire to make one wise and to become as gods knowing good and evil.

Not really much has changed today, for man is still plagued with three basic issues [1 John 2:16]:

1 - the lust of the flesh
2 - the lust of the eyes
3 - the pride of life

Man still wants to deny there is any God, but self.

The next step is the desire to produce a synthetic “species” so that science can say, “We are your god”.

“Scientists in the last couple of years have been trying to create novel forms of life from scratch. They've forged chemicals into synthetic DNA, the DNA into genes, genes into genomes, and built the molecular machinery of completely new organisms in the lab—organisms that are nothing like anything nature has produced.”

So forget God, forget Mother Nature, forget evolution, man says “I will create life! - Well, by using what I can find around the lab, because I haven’t figured out how God did it in the beginning yet.”

Your Great Great Granny Was A Chimp

I was recently sent an article Chimps are human, gene study implies (2003) that claimed “The new study found that 99.4 percent of the most critical DNA sites are identical in the corresponding human and chimp genes.”

Did you read that? I mean really read it? “of the most critical DNA sites” – This does not mean 99.4 percent when totally comparing all of man’s DNA with chimps DNA.

Of course, conveniently I ran across another article Greater than 98% Chimp/human DNA similarity? Not any more (2003) stating that the number has dropped to only 95 percent. And remember this is not matching 100 percent of human DNA to 100 percent chimp DNA.

The following is from the article:

---

The 98.5% similarity has been misleading because it depends on what is being compared.

Specific examples of these differences include:

1. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while chimpanzees have 24. Evolutionary scientists believe that one of the human chromosomes has been formed through the fusion of two small chromosomes in the chimp instead of an intrinsic difference resulting from a separate creation.

2. At the end of each chromosome is a string of repeating DNA sequences called a telomere. Chimpanzees and other apes have about 23 kilobases (a kilobase is 1,000 base pairs of DNA) of repeats. Humans are unique among primates with much shorter telomeres only 10 kilobases long.7

3. While 18 pairs of chromosomes are ‘virtually identical’, chromosomes 4, 9 and 12 show evidence of being ‘remodeled.’5 In other words, the genes and markers on these chromosomes are not in the same order in the human and chimpanzee. Instead of ‘being remodeled’ as the evolutionists suggest, these could, logically, also be intrinsic differences because of a separate creation.

4. The Y chromosome in particular is of a different size and has many markers that do not line up between the human and chimpanzee.1

5. Scientists have prepared a human-chimpanzee comparative clone map of chromosome 21 in particular. They observed ‘large, non-random regions of difference between the two genomes.’ They found a number of regions that ‘might correspond to insertions that are specific to the human lineage.’3

In one of the most extensive studies comparing human and chimp DNA,3 the researchers compared >19.8 million bases. While this sounds like a lot, it still represents slightly less than 1% of the genome.

Will evolution be called into question now that the similarity of chimpanzee and human DNA has been reduced from >98.5% to ~95%? Probably not. Regardless of whether the similarity was reduced even below 90%, evolutionists would still believe that humans and apes shared a common ancestor. Moreover, using percentages hides an important fact. If 5% of the DNA is different, this amounts to 150,000,000 DNA base pairs that are different between them!

Evolution: Bunches Of Micros Equal A Macro?

On an older posts concerning macro and micro evolution I received a new comment I thought interesting. I figured I would created a new post since most probably do not revisit old posts including myself.

I was told:

Under most circumstances, evolution of species is a long, painstaking process. Of course, occasionally, genetic mutations in animals and plants (microbes mutate much faster) may give rise to inherently newer, related species, but generally speaking, the simplest microevolution requires decades, which is a pretty long time.

For a new species to develop, a few scenarios is possible: Cross breeding of similar breeds (Liger = Male Lion parent & Female Tiger parent), subtle, random mutations in the general population which favor natural selection, and possibly a genetic random mutation that suddenly emerges in a general population.

The truth is, evolution does not guarantee immunity from extinction. Nor does it automatically throw in raw species to make up the numbers.

And another thing. Macroevolution is not difficult to understand. Just think of it as a summation of all those minute changes in microevolution.

----------

Under most circumstances, evolution of species is a long, painstaking process… generally speaking, the simplest microevolution requires decades, which is a pretty long time. - What about macroevolution? Has man ever actually physically seen macroevolution take place?

Cross breeding of similar breeds - I have seen the turkin and beefalope in Alabama, but that is not a proof of evolution by no means. It is a proof of science playing God by taking species and crossing them with similar species. Now a turkalope, that would be interesting to see.

possibly a genetic random mutation that suddenly emerges in a general population. - Interestingly in the world of comics mutations are seen as a superior being to human, whereas in the medical field of the real world the majority are not.

possibly a genetic random mutation that suddenly emerges in a general population - Why would evolution see the beginning or initial mutation as a good thing to keep instead of removing?

Macroevolution is not difficult to understand. Just think of it as a summation of all those minute changes in microevolution. - I do not follow the logic or reasoning behind this statement. If microevolution is the minor change within a species and macroevolution is the major change from one species to a higher species, how is it that a bunch of in species changes can equal a species jump?

FAITH A Four Letter Word

Faith:
Hebrews 11:1: the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Encarta.com: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof
Dictionary.com: confidence or trust in a person or thing, belief that is not based on proof

It appears some believe faith to be a four letter word that they will have no part of. So today, I am questioning faith with the idea of, can anyone actually live life without such? I am not narrowing my idea of faith to only saving faith or even religious faith, but simply faith as it stands in anything.

Does every person at least have some type of faith in something or someone, even if they deny such? I believe the answer is yes.

Is there not a sense of faith in believing that ones mother and father are actually their biological parents? Unless there is a DNA test that proves undeniable evidence that such are, is it not based on trust in a person without actual proof? One may say that the evidence points to that, ah, but the evidence though may point to such may only be leading one away from the truth.

I know children that look like their parents, but their parents are not their biological parents. There are cases that children do not even know they have been adopted till their teen years when they are told of such. Men have signed birth certificates stating they are the father when they are not the biological father. Yet all these children do not simply “think” these people are their parents, they “believe” and have “faith” that these are their parents without requiring or requesting logical evidence or proof.

Theists are often criticized for having faith that indeed a Creator (whom we call God) created this universe. We are often scoffed by saying we have no evidence and it leaves too many unanswered questions.

On the flip side, when questions as to the origination of the Big Bang, of what set all this in motion, we are given answers like “We don’t know yet” or “Maybe matter and energy has always existed”. Some may claim evidence to the “after effects” of the Big Bang, but not the “start” or the “cause” of the Big Bang. Does this not fall in line with the Biblical definition of faith? “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” No one saw the Big Bang, but there is hope and they believe evidence of that not seen exist to prove it happened.

There could be many more examples, but I just don’t see where it is possible for anyone to live life without some type of faith whether small or great in someone or something without requiring or demanded “show me the evidence first”.

What Do Theists and Atheists Have In Common?

I believe I have found what atheists, theists, and any other 'ists' seem to have in common.

None of us very much like our beliefs/thoughts/ideas/convictions questioned, and we don't mind telling the offender so.

I wonder if there is really such a thing as "agree to disagree".
I doubt we could agree there is such.

Sure we say, "We will just not talk to the other side", yet we still spend our time talking about the other side. So we really haven't agreed to disagree, but have decided to disagree behind their back so we don't have to listen to their point. This way we get to talk and make fun of them without any recourse or test of what we are saying. This helps us to feel free to sling railing accusations without actual support or facts to back up our claims.

Interesting...

Side/their/them - simply meaning anyone we personally disagree with.

Just a tid-bit to think about.

update: Hmmm... What about an agnostic? I have never spoken to one that I know of. Would they hold this common that us 'ists' do?

Christians vs. Atheists – Does God Exist – Debate

Apparently on May 5, 2007 at debate between Christians Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron and Atheists Brian Sapient and "Kelly" (who apparently did not want to give her real name) took place at Calvary Baptist Church in New York City.

The debate is to air on ABC News Now tomorrow afternoon and Nightline tomorrow night on Wednesday, May 9, 2007.

Informing articles:

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=3130360&page=1
http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php/1972/Patrick_Burwell

I haven’t seen the debate, but according to the link above, “Kelly” had a “wardrobe malfunction” that was most inappropriate for such a place (church) and situation (intellectual debate).

Interestingly it seems that this Brian Sapient and “Kelly” are a part of the following:

“The Rational Response Squad challenges people to take the Blasphemy Challenge in which they make videos of themselves denouncing or blaspheming the Holy Spirit, and then post them on YouTube.”

In my opinion, it is one thing to claim to be an atheist by which you believe there is no God, but to coherence teens (or anyone) into “denouncing or blaspheming the Holy Spirit” – which an atheist claims not to believe exist – there must be a deeper agenda. Yes, I believe, an underlying purpose must exist for such a motivation to move a group.

Tune-in and let’s see what we can glean from this.

Do You Believe In Evolution?

A Transcript of: The Republican Presidential Candidates Debate (May 3, 2007) from nytimes.com gives the recall of the debate if you missed it (which I did).

The question: “I’m curious, is there anybody on the stage that does not agree -- believe in evolution?”

Three of the ten hands went up:

Senator Brownback, Mr. Huckabee, Representative Tancredo

Senator McCain added: "I believe in evolution. But I also believe, when I hike the Grand Canyon and see it at sunset, that the hand of God is there also."

Mr. Huckabee said: “he is not opposed to teaching Darwin's theory” later, here.

Me, personally, I was amazed that only three hands were raised, but hey, I really don’t know these guys.

What about America?

From pollingreport.com:

Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. March 28-29, 2007. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Which one of the following statements come closest to your views about the origin and development of human beings? Humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process. OR, Humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process. OR, God created humans pretty much in the present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."
God Guided, 30%

God, No Part, 13%

Created, Present Form, 48%

Other/Unsure, 9%

"Do you think the scientific theory of evolution is well-supported by evidence and widely accepted within the scientific community?"
Yes, 48%

No, 39%

Unsure, 13%

My questions are for the “God Guided” above with the question, “Humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process”.

If God is the Creator, why would it take Him over millions of years to guide a process from less advanced forms of life? How can you trust in a God that you believe cannot even create what we see today but can only produce less forms of life and guide them as they grow themselves? Would that not mean that the creature is equal or greater than the Creator that could not create it in the state by which it has come now on its own? What purpose would (did) it serve?

Is this coming from Christians? From Christians that believe the Word of God?

Sorry, but am I the only one that finds this strange?

Hypocrite

hyp·o·crite - a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

I find it interesting that the definition noted above uses the words “pretends to have” then at the end adds “esp. a person whose actions belie (contradict) stated beliefs”.

Hypocrite seems to be an easy name to sling at someone when they fall short of another’s expectations. The non-religious may throw it at the religious and the religious has no problem throwing it at the religious also.

In my opinion I find it hard to consider falling short of one’s expectations to be the same as pretending.

To fall short means: to fail to reach a particular standard.

To pretend means: to appear falsely, as to deceive.

I ponder is there then any leeway or margin of error between outright pretending and simply falling short of expectation?

A Christian knows they are not perfect – well, at least should know that – since the Bible clearly teaches such. So, does one deserve to be called a hypocrite each and every time they fail to meet God’s standard of holiness and perfection?

Also then to the non-religious which also hold some type of morality, ideas, or thoughts of what they claim to be. Have they not also fallen short here and there, should they then be labeled the hypocrite?

I say then we are all hypocrites indeed.

Frustrated

Have you ever been frustrated to the point that you have to either walk away or say something you may regret later? No. You just haven’t spoken to enough people yet. Hahaha

What is the best policy when one is talking religion, politics, science, or television and the one just can’t seem to “make” the other agree or “see it my way”?

Maybe we should step back and take a moment to relax. Sometimes I think we get into discussions and all we really hear is ourselves. Instead of listening to the other side so we can intelligently agree or disagree, we often spend the time they are talking merely thinking of a “good” reply to “slam” them with.

What that leaves us with is no discussion “between” each other, but “at” each other; with both sides only hearing, “Blah, blah, blah”.

Proverbs 18:13 says, “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.”

So next time, why don’t we, including me, listen first, then agree or disagree intelligently.

Creationist, Atheist, and Morality

Morality – “conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.”
Moral – “of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong”

It has been noted in some atheist’s circles that they feel Christians promote themselves as “morally superior (maybe not perfect, but certainly better) to atheists” simply because they are a Christians.

For the moment I would like to discuss the idea of morality. Let it be noted that this particular argument will not be for/against any, but basically my thoughts of what I perceive of the issue. Feel free to share your thoughts, in good taste, and show where you agree or disagree with my view.

Two stipulations are that we are discussing morality in America and the Christian God in this context and not the other gods of cults, etc.

First, I would like to remove names and place people into three basic groups.
Group 1 = those that do not believe in God.
Group 2 = those that believe in a God, but do not serve him.
Group 3 = those that believe in a God, and do strive to serve him.

Second, please ask yourself into which group you fall so that we may proceed. There is no need to lie to yourself, for no one else will know, if you have a hard time choosing between Group 2 and Group 3. Either you do or you don’t strive to serve God. This is not a call to perfection. If you go through life doing what you like but not really wanting to hurt anyone else choose Group 2, if you go through life reading, studying, and trying to follow what is laid out in scripture choose Group 3. Group 1 is obvious.

Thirdly, please ask yourself most likely where did your thoughts of morality most likely arrive from. Did it come from your own reading or did it come from your friends, parents, family (grandparents, etc.), teachers (school or church), church (pastors, etc.), society programs (YMCA, etc.), etc.?

Most likely we have all been given the same (or mighty close) general rules when it comes to morality: don’t lie, cheat, or steal; don’t hurt or kill someone; don’t abuse children; don’t have sex with other people’s spouses. Sure there are some varied states such as sex before marriage, but more is in common than not.

The “golden rule” known as “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” seems to appear in all three Groups above, which in most cases is how one judges morality, and how they perceive themselves as a “good person”. In the groups above we find that people compare themselves to other people to distinguish how they find themselves more or less moral than another; therefore the idea of morality becomes an individual one.

By this I mean one group cannot conclude that all in another group is totally immoral or that they personally are more moral than an entire group. Such blanket statements are not made by wisdom, but by pride.

Morality in a person can and does occur with or without a conversion to salvation. For one, God (although some deny) has said that he has given us all a conscience [John 1:9], which can be seared [1 Timothy 4:2]. When one does something against morality, they feel guilty, but over time the more one does against their conscience the less they feel guilty. This is not the same as being convicted by the Holy Spirit. This is a built in process we are born with. If not, mankind would have long ago killed each other off along with creation itself. [Genesis 6:5]

[Case 1] In the mindset of all groups, it seems obvious that Group 3 should be the MOST moral. By this I mean they claim there is a God, they claim they have trusted in Christ and that he has changed them. They claim they have the Book which gives instructions on how to live right and be moral. For this reason they are easy targets for Group 1 and 2, for it is almost as if they wait in the gap for every moment to yell, “Hypocrite” when one from Group 3 falls short of morality. It is sad, but the failures of Group 3 lead to Group 1 and 2 not wanting to come over to Group 3.

[Case 2] In like manner, Group 3 proudly explains how moral they are since they follow the Book and are saved, and claim that Group 2 is only partial moral and Group 1 is immoral to the core.

Is either case real?

In reality, yes Group 3 should be acting morally superior to Group 1 and 2. Not simply because they claim to be a Christian, but because they do have a God they love and should have a desire to follow what is in his Book. Contained in the Book is the understanding that morality lies within the individual concerning obedience to the law (God’s law which covers more and may vary from man’s law) both physically and mentally. One in Group 3 realizes that God judges both the act and the motive. Group 3 should also realize that others are not the standard, but Christ is. Group 3 should not be parading around as if they have obtained for they believe it is not them but Christ which is doing the good through them and that they are very capable of immoral acts for their flesh is still corrupt and in it dwells no good thing [Romans 7:18]. Group 3 should expect Group 1 and 2 to be less biblically moral, because Group 2, although believe there is a God, they do not take time to study the Book nor live over the morality set by society, and Group 1 denies such a God and therefore denies the authority of the rules in the Book. Group 3 should have a more moral lifestyle than Group 1 and 2 for the simply fact they are to obey the laws of society and the laws of God laid out in his Book.

In reality, Group 1 and 2 will most likely be less moral than Group 3 for the mere fact that although they may follow the laws of society, the concepts and teachings of Christ found in the Book are most likely not considered or looked at. An example is sex before marriage. All of Group 3, if honest, will have to say this is immoral according to God and the Book. Whereas individuals within Group 1 and 2 may say it is bad or it is okay based on individual preference or teaching and Group 2 may site the Book, but Group 1 would not.

I apologize. At the start I did not realize that this would linger on so long.

I will close with this thought.

Although we can look at Groups and say what we believe should be the norm, the issue of morality lies in the actions of each individual person. Evidence shows that individuals in Group 1, 2, and 3 can lie, cheat, still, adultery, abuse kids, etc., etc. etc. As I stated before, it should be that Group 3 is more moral than Group 1 and 2, and Group 1 and 2 should be able to see such without crying “Hypocrite”, but Group 3 should remember that it is Christ working in them and reframe from saying “all are immoral but me.” Let it be noted that there are those in Group 1 which are more moral than some which profess Group 2 and 3 at times.

One difference should be noted and it was taught well in a movie called Time Changers. Morality is a great thing and without it mankind could not survive. Where morality comes from is what separates one from another. If morality is simply of man, then it is based on what man sees as right and wrong and can vary from person to person. If morality is based on God and his Book then it is fixed upon what he has said regardless of whether man agrees or disagrees with it.

Group 1 – I ask you to remain as moral as you can for the sake of yourself and others. I would also ask that you consider acknowledging God and trusting in Christ, his son.

Group 2 – I ask you to live that which you profess. If you believe in God then obey his Book, trust in Christ if you have not, and live a life pleasing to God.

Group 3 – I ask you to live a life that Group 1 and 2 would see Christ in you and desire to know him. Don’t let your testimony be as one that pushes them away from God.

Morality: What is the standard and where do you see yourself?

So I Came From a Tadpole

I recently infrequently started visiting an atheist blog and some time back I spent a couple of weeks conversing back and forth with an atheist. Admittedly I don’t know all the info surrounding atheists, but one thing is for sure, they do not believe in a Creator.

The Big Bang seems to be considered the “beginning” and evolution seems to be the means by which man now exists. But reading this article here got me thinking.

According to Wikipedia, the Big Bang “is the scientific theory that the universe emerged from a tremendously dense and hot state about 13.7 billion years ago.” Although, “Physicists do not widely agree on what happened before this, although general relativity predicts a gravitational singularity.” The read is interesting and seems to favor a sci-fi movie theme. How they can easily discount a Creator but are unable to explain where all the matter came from to “start” this random operation to actually produce intelligent design is beyond my human ability to comprehend, and their ability to figure times that it took such and such to develop leaves me highly wondering exactly how much credibility can be put in such an unknown.

So one has the option of believing Genesis 1, that God created the heaven and earth, where the atheist asks, “Then explain to me this God”, or to embrace the Big Bang which I ask, “Explain to me this something from nothing”, or simply not give a hoot. Even as one has the option of believing by faith the Genesis 1 in that God has created mankind, or one may hope in the theory that mankind was randomly created from nothing which became something over millions and m…(hold on, let me get my calculator) time.

As for evolution, there is talk of micro and macro types. Microevolution speaks of changes that stay within a species. Macroevolution speaks of changes which move one species to becoming another species. Most Christians would find it acceptable and observable to agree with microevolution, but when it comes to macroevolution the evidence is lacking. Although there are fossils that science would love to conclude that macroevolution exist, the notable proof that there are “missing links” shows that it is yet a hope and not a fact. It is often argued with viruses and moths as to the proof of evolution, but in both cases they remain viruses and moths; neither macro-evolve into some new species. The eye is a very detailed piece that speaks highly against such random chance as found in macroevolution thoughts.

Back to the article: They claim that Global “Warming will end some species”. My question is this: If evolution, as in macro, is true, then why are species dying instead of simply converting to a new species or adapting to the change in climate to survive? Surely if everything has evolve from nothing, and we are all connected to the same gene pool, and species have been evolving AND so has the climate over millions and millions of years why is it that we are not seeing evolution causing great change within species to convert to new species today?

One might believe they came from nothing, but I have faith I came from something.

God, the great I AM.