Suggestions. anyone?

Hey, y’all! This is just a post to let all of you know that I am open to any suggestion on what I should write on next. Please be warned that I will screen through everything heavily, and if I feel like it’s a subject that isn’t appropriate, it will not be written on.

So, just comment on this post, or on the About page! I still have some things that have already be written, but would like to know what you, as the readers, are interested in.

The Trolls Are Coming…AAAHHH!!!!!

I am quite active on Google Plus and usually scroll through the “What’s Hot” section. I always come across some post regarding Christianity, like a verse, or a quote based on a verse. And, almost without fail, there are a few kinds of trollers:

1. The cursers and swearers

2. Those that have been educated beyond their level of intelligence (meaning to say that this people have stuffed their brain with too much useless and highly dubious information; therefore, causing their brain to overheat and totally become useless. Most of the time, they don’t even know what they are saying.)

3. The “Amen!” group

4. Once in a very, very long while, those that are truly curious as to what Christianity is about

5. And then, there are some like me, the apologetics

 

The main ones I want to talk about are numbers 1 and 2. Let’s start with number one:

This trolls usually post up a colorful range of imaginative curse words that are designed to set all of us thinking.

Just kidding, they are just a bunch of hobos that want attention and people to come attend their everlasting pity party. Their comments really have no substance, just empty fluff to try to get people to notice their insignificant lives. And, when there is no response to them, they will try to give a few more comments, but if there is ultimately no RSVP to their pity party, then they try their luck somewhere else. If you were to visit their wall feed, you should not be surprised to see that the majority of their post are aimed at ridiculing, blaspheming, and denouncing Jesus Christ.

Good luck trying to carry a coherent debate with them, because the only words they actually know the meaning of, and how to use them, are vulgarities.

 

Then, there is number two. This is a bunch of highly trained intellectuals that are way smarter than any of us will ever be. They are the sages of our time, the ones who will mould and shape our future.

Haha…just kidding again. This are just of people that have a lot of free time on their hands and like to go onto the internet to find things to discredit the reality of the Bible, God, and Jesus Christ. These people are usually a highly advanced form of number one. They do, however, share a similar characteristic, that is, they also love to swear and curse, especially when they know that they are losing their arguments. Even if you present them with irrefutable evidence to their fairy tale claims, they will still cling on to their sinking life boat or they will curse you and your entire lineage and posterity.

For this group, you should be well versed in evolution VS Creation and with common “contradictions” in the Bible. Because, that is their usual ammo.

 

Now, why do I sometimes jump into this foray? Mainly because – it challenges my faith, it teaches me to be a stronger Christian, it gives me plenty of misconceptions the world has with God and the Bible in general. Therefore, it may be draining sometimes, all the getting cursed at and random information being thrown into your face, but it allows me to see God in a whole new different perspective. And, it ultimately makes me thankful that I am already a Child of God. This reminds me of something that Ray Comfort wrote:

“Almost every evening Sue and I watch stress-free rugby. It’s stress free because they are recorded games, and Sue checks the scores to see if our teams won. (If they didn’t, we don’t watch).
That means when the other teams score, we know a secret. We win, no matter what happens.
That’s also why the Christian never gets stressed, because we know a secret. We win no matter what.”

Chicken or Egg?

According to evolution, man was not created directly by God but evolved from animals. Evolutionists say that at some point in history, certain animals began accidentally changing in ways that eventually produced a man. The idea of evolution has many weaknesses. It cannot explain the beginning of the world; it gives a false impression of man.

Man differs from animals in possessing language and thought. Anyone who believes that man evolved from animals must explain how language and reason began…logic has set traps in a series of “chicken and eggs – which came first?” problems.

Human thought requires language. Much of our thinking is in words. When we think, we sort of listen to ourselves talk inside our heads. Language, on the other hand, requires thought. Unless there is thought behind the sounds called language or speech, what comes out is mere gibberish. Which came first, language or thought?

Without language and men talking to one another, there would be no truly human society. Instead of society, there would be merely a herd or swarm. But language means communication and therefore assumes men living together in society. Which came first, society or language?

Genesis, of course, does not have these problems of logic. It presents man as the direct creation of God and from the very first having language, thought, and society. The evolutionists’ only escape from logic is to downplay man’s special characteristics. He underrates man’s speech and reason.

To an evolutionist, man is nothing more than a computer made of flesh and bones. The result of humanism is putting man in place of or above God…The Bible’s account of the beginning elevates God. It also elevates man, but not at God’s expense. Humanism, whether in the guise of evolution or of some other view, tries to build man up by playing down or ignoring God. It rebels against God but utterly destroys man by making him no different from an animal or a machine.

Adapted from Jerry Combee, History of the World in Christian Perspective

Romans 1:19-25

Just thought I’d share a verse – Romans 1:19-25:

19 ¶ Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Evolution is matter of faith, not science!

Note: The evolution I am talking about is macroevolution.

Evolution is now considered an accepted form of science and is taught in every non-Christian school. This is a great moral issue in society, along with abortion; euthanasia, homosexuality etc… It was made-up to take the place of common sense science because of pride. Like the tower of Babel, man wants to take God out of the picture, deny that he ever existed, even when evidence demands that there had to be a mind behind all creation. However, evolution should never be counted as science.

Let us first look at the scientific method, before we talk before about evolution. The scientific method’s definition, according to Wikipedia, states that, “scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been REPEATEDLY CONFIRMED through OBSERVATION and EXPERIMENT.”¹ Wikipedia also states under “Essential Criteria”, that, A would-be theory that makes no observable predictions is not a useful theory. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term “theory” is hardly applicable.” ¹ It is so obvious that evolution runs on imprecision when science runs on precision.

Furthermore, Stephen Jay Gould, a respected paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science, had this to say: “Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact.”² He then goes on to say this, “Moreover, “fact” does not mean “absolute certainty…The second and third arguments for evolution—the case for major changes—do not involve direct observation of evolution in action. They rest upon inference, but are no less secure for that reason…We must infer them from results that still surround us: living and fossil organisms for evolution, documents and artifacts for human history, strata and topography for geology.”² which means that evolution is not something that we know happened with “absolute certainty.” We will talk later about the “…living and fossil organisms for evolution…”² that evolutionists say support their view. Therefore, evolution cannot be counted as a theory or science; there was no observation or experimentation.

Another interesting thing that evolutionists may use at creationists is Karl Popper’s philosophy of falsifiability. The definition is this: “Falsifiability or refutability is the trait of a statementhypothesis, or theory  ³: and “…a theory should be considered scientific if, and only if, it is falsifiable.”4 But, wouldn’t that mean that Newton’s law of motion and the theory of universal gravitation (I use the word ‘theory’ in the scientific way) would not be science since it can’t be proven false? What a tizzy our world would be in.

Then, what about the evolutionists who like to credit their so-called ‘theory’, with fossils, especially about transitional fossils? Let us use the famous “Lucy.” It is the most complete set of skeleton found for this certain type of supposedly link between ape and monkey. How did they know what kind of creature it was by just a few fragments of bones?

To find this out, I had the opportunity to e-mail John “Jack” R. Horner, one of the best-known paleontologists in America, asking two questions. The following is our conversation:

Me: I was wondering. How do paleontologists know what kind of creature you just have dug up only a few fragments of bones, and not the full skeleton?

Jack: We can’t always identify a creature with tiny fragments, but we do sometimes just because many skeletal bones look different from one animal to another, and we compare what we find with other animal skeletons found in similar age rock.  For example if I found a few small bones of an animal from a particular rock formation here in Montana, I would compare them to other bones from the same area that I have in our collection.  But, many times we don’t find enough to identify, and sometimes the creature is a new species so we don’t have anything to compare it with.

Me: Okay…so, if you are lucky, you can find a complete set of skeletons in the same rock age and compare fragments with that full set?

Jack: Yes, although we seldom find complete sets.

In the case of “Lucy”, which is the most complete set of skeleton found consisting of only forty-seven bones, there was no complete set of skeleton found; therefore, there was nothing to compare those few fragments with. No one can then say that it was a half-ape and half-human. It was either fully an ape, or fully human.

Alas, we reach the Big Bang Theory, the core of evolution, as it explains the beginnings of evolution, if it were a theory, why are the results not reproducible? This is the crux of this evolution religion. With no prove that this “bang” happened, the rest of the evidence that macro-evolution happened can be thrown out the window. Because, the foundation of this religion never happened, macro-evolution never happened.

Why has there never been another record of something exploding and creating another earth in the process? Because it never happened! Let’s say, the evolutionists say that this big bang happened in another galaxy, but, we can’t see it. Doesn’t that take faith to believe that it happened too?

The evolutionists like to make fun at creationist, because we believe that God was always there and that He created the earth out of ex niliho. But, don’t the evolutionists need as much faith as we do to believe that the world came about by chance? Evolution is just another religion where God is taken out of the picture because of man’s pride. The Bible says of these unbelieving scientists in Romans 1:25, “Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Creation shows that even the smallest cell is a complex being, needing an omnipotent Creator. Clearly stated in the Bible, God was the One who created our world. But, man’s pride created evolution to take God out of the picture. Evolution is not science. It is another religion.