What is digital scrapbooking anyway? Actually, its just scrapbooking, but its done digitally! :) (ingenious name, really). With the advent of digital cameras and photos, moms have begun to keep their memories digitally instead of literally cutting and pasting things into place. In the world of digital scrapbooking, you buy "papers", "elements" and "fonts" the same way you buy real paper. Then you use Photoshop or InDesign or some other graphic design program to put your page together. When you buy paper or fonts or whatever, you download it directly from the site and it is yours to use whenever you'd like. So, although you have to purchase it, it basically lasts a lot longer than a "real" piece of paper because you can use it over and over again.
I found this wonderful world by accident on Scrapartist.com. They have a wonderful gallery and tons of "How-To's". Also, on digital scrapbooking sites, they offer "FREEBIES", which are free downloads to get you started. They have beautiful papers and elements for sale, but I have always stuck with the free stuff because otherwise I would probably spend a LOT of money! :)
If you know how to use Photoshop... you can digitally alter the free stuff into different colors or shapes and create more items for your scrapbook collection! The terms of use are basically that you can't sell your creations if its free... and I'm not sure if you buy it because I never have :). But I think if its for personal use, you can do whatever you want with it! :)
Once you download the elements, you just open a document in Photoshop or InDesign and start layering them together until you get your desired page. The final step would be printing or saving in multiple places so you don't lose your work! :)
There is also a medium of art out there called digital collages. I think these are SUPER fun! Its just like a basic collage where you would cut and put together using actual paper, scissors and glue, but it's done digitally. Check out Robyn England's site for more information on this.
Here are some more sites:
scrapartist.com
twopeasinabucket.com (go to 'digital scrapbooking')
robynengland.com
Hope that helps those of you who are curious! :)
Friday, September 22, 2006
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Apologetics Part 6: Scientific Facts About EVOLUTION
continued from Apologetics Part 5....
Every week, I learn so much that I think each lesson is my favorite until I hear the next week's topic. But I was especially thrilled to find out we were covering Evolution and Darwinism. I have never really understood either and because of that, I have shied away from any conversation concerning either topic. Why isn't evolution true? "Because God created the earth, that's why!" That has always been my response... until now! The last couple of posts, I talked about using science to prove the existence of God, and this one is the same. In fact, I think science is God's best creation yet... this information is so clear and so overwhelmingly in support of an intentionally created universe, it blows my mind! There is so much information, but I promise if you can get through it all, it will be worth it. Remember that this is taken from an hour long sermon, so that's why there is so much to read. I am going to do one long post so that the train of thought doesn't get interrupted. Here we go....
There are two kinds of science... Empirical Science (testing of regularities of every day happenings) and Forensic Science (looking at past occurrences to figure out what happened... think CSI). The basic tool of Forensic Science is the Principle of Uniformity. It says that causes in the past were like the causes we observe today. In other words, by the Principle of Uniformity, we assume that the world worked in the past just like it works today; especially when it comes to causes. If Natural Law can do the job today, then the perishable of Uniformity would lead us to conclude that Natural Laws do the job in the past. However, if intelligence can do the job today, and only intelligence.... then the same holds true for the past.
In A.E. Wilder-Smith's book, He Who Thinks Must Believe, he shares an story. It isn't written in my notes, so I will just write the bottom line of his analogy. Basically, he says that canned food is a contrary to evolution. A sealed can of food is void of life. Basically, there is nothing in it that will grow (hopefully). So, if you let that can sit for a long time unopened, it will not grow into something new. It will stay as it is unless someone comes along and adds life to it. Life cannot spring from non-life. That is common sense.
But our 'common sense' is actually the Principle of Uniformity. Thus, in accordance with the last two postings, Evolutionists must answer three questions:
1. How does something come from nothing?
2. How does complexity come from non-complexity?
3. How does life come from non-life?
There are no answers to these questions. So, there are three basic categories that the Darwin Model must deal with:
1. The Origin of the Universe
2. The Origin of Life
3. The Origin of New Life Forms
Before we look at these questions, lets look at one quote from a Darwinist (Richard Dawkins) on how they explain away complex design:
"The information content of the human brain expressed in bits is probably comparable to the total number of connections among the neurons- about a hundred trillion bits. If written out in English, say, that information would fill some twenty million volumes, as many as in the world's largest libraries. The equivalent of twenty million books in inside the heads of every one of us. The brain is a very big place in a very small space.... The neurochemistry of the brain is astonishingly busy. The circuitry of a machine more wonderful than any devised by humans." He then goes on to simply say no one designed it.
He states elsewhere, "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."
Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, another Darwinist, sees the appearance of design so clearly that he warns that "biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." They have to be careful that they don't turn into Creationists!
And how do they respond to the question of life coming from non-life? The argument is this, "Either there is an intelligent cause or a non-intelligent cause." Concerning a non-intelligent cause, Michael Denton, a Microbiologist and an atheist says, "The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that this is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable event. Such occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle."!!! That is from an atheist! Life on planet earth, according to Fred Hoyle, had to be created by an intelligent creator- aliens. Why? Because he calculated the probability of life arising by spontaneous generation was effectively zero. Yet, he refuses to point to the existence of God. Why? Well, that will be in next week's study.
Michael Behe, a Microbiologist, has said that the probability of getting one protein molecule from nothing is like sending a blind man into the Sahara Desert and asking him to find one grain of sand... three times!
So how do they respond, "It's just so." That is not science, that is faith. And their faith is contrary to proven scientific evidence.
Moving to the next question... that of new life forms or Macroevolution. Naturalistic Evolutionists claim that this one-celled amoeba (or something like it) came together by spontaneous generation (i.e. without intelligent intervention) in a warm little pond somewhere on the very early earth. According to their theory, all biological life has evolved from that first amoeba without any intelligent guidance at all. This, of course, is the theory of Macroevolution: from the infantile, to the reptile, to the crocodile, to the Gentile. Or, from the goo to you via the zoo. So let's take a look and see if that theory has any scientific merit.
Defining EVOLUTION is perhaps the greatest point of confusion in the creation vs. evolution controversy.
MICROEVOLUTION: Changes or variation within a species. It happens, science proves it. Example: Darwin's finches and bacteria mutation.
MACROEVOLUTION: Small successive changes over a long amount of time that lead to a new species. This has never been observed. Never has any species CHANGED FROM ONE SPECIES TO ANOTHER. Example: A cow to a whale, reptile to a bird, monkey to a man.
Evolutionists claim the mechanism by which a creature changes from one animal to another is through "Natural Selection". This is not the proper word to label this process, why? Since, in their words, the process is evolution is, by definition, without intelligence, there is no "selection" at all going on. It's a blind process. The term "natural selection" simply means the fittest creature survives.
Natural selection has never been observed to produce new life forms. Bacteria, even though it changed quite a bit, has always remained bacteria. The finches that Darwin observed always remained finches. They use microevolution to prove macroevolution.
The problem: Macroevolution is exactly what Darwinists claim from the data. They say that observable micro changes can be extrapolated to prove that unobservable microevolution has occurred. They make no distinction between microevolution and macroevolution, and thus use the evidence from micro to prove macro. By failing to make this critical distinction, Darwinists can dupe the general public into thinking that any observable change in any organism proves all life has evolved from the first one-celled creature. No matter how much something changes within its own species, it has never changed into a completely different species.
There are four reasons for this:
1. Genetic Limits: Artificial Selection vs. Natural Selection
Artificial Selection has an end in view, has an intelligent process, and has intelligent choices.
Natural Selection has no end, it is a blind process and has non-intelligent choices. Basically this means that nothing is done by a creator- its just chance. But the interesting thing is even when scientists intelligently manipulate creatures with an end in mind- which is the antithesis of blind Darwin process- macroevolution still doesn't work!
2. Clinical change: The changes in microevolution go in a cycle. It never turns into something completely new. For example, Darwin's finches' beaks got longer during a certain time of year and shorter during other times of the year- but they never changed into something besides beaks.
3. Irreducible Complexity: In 1859, Charles Darwin wrote, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." We now know that there are many organs, systems and processes in life that fit that description. He could not see what we see now... this saying contradicts evolution and we now have proof of this. An irreducibly complex system is "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of these parts causes the system to effectively break down."
An example of this is blood clotting. If our blood did not clot in the precise way that it does, our blood would actually crystallize. So it could not have had an 'in between' stage while we were 'evolving' because this system is so complex. Irreducibly complex biochemical systems include: blood clotting, cilia (cell propulsion organism), and vision. This means that new life can't come into existence by the Darwin method of slight, successive changes over a long period of time.
Michael Behe, a leading authority on the subject says, "There is currently no experimental evidence to show that natural selection can get around irreducible complexity."
4. Non-viability of transitional forms: Since natural selection is slight, successive changes over a long period of time, there would be these transitional repti-birds, or cowhales, or mankeys. These guys would be useless while they are in that transitional phase.... a cow with a whale body? They would be weak... and natural selection eliminates things that aren't fit- so how did they survive? Its contradictory to the theory of survival of the fittest.
Some extra questions that come up regarding Evolution
What about the fossil record?
Darwin, although oblivious to the complexity of the cell, still faced a problem in facing the fossil record. He says concerning the lack of transitional fossils, "Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this, perhaps is the most obvious and grave objection which can be argued against my theory." Those are Darwin's words. He is admitting there is no evidence of transitional forms, but he thought that with time, archaeologists would surely find some. They have never found even one.
Stephen J. Gould (an Evolutionist), the late Harvard Paleontologist states: "The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. The appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." Therefore, there is no evidence for gradual transformation. So, he's saying that since it could not have happened gradually, it must've happened all at once! To him, the lack of evidence equals a new theory that doesn't need evidence.
Jonathan Wells writes, "The fossil record is so strong, and the event so dramatic, that it has become known as 'The Cambrian explosion', or Biology's Big Bang." This theory doesn't support evolution, it actually supports creationism. There was a big bang... we just happen to know that God was the one who created it.
Another question: What about the apparent progression of skulls from monkey to man?
Did you know that 99% of the biology of an organism in its soft anatomy? Which is inaccessible in a fossil? So, in a fossil, we only have 1% of the information that can be found about it.
Also, we have all seen the artistic renderings of skulls from monkey to man. But just because you line something up, doesn't mean that they progressed. For example, we can line up a teaspoon, tablespoon, cup and kettle, but it doesn't mean that they all evolved from a teaspoon. In fact, on the those posters, if you read the fine print, you will see the disclaimer that it is actually an artistic rendering rather than fact. The same with drawing the different stages of monkeys turning into men.
Furthermore, the fossil record is irrelevant to the question. Michael Behe writes, "Anatomy is, quite simply, irrelevant to the question of whether evolution could take place on the molecular level. So is fossil record. It no longer matters whether there are huge gaps in the fossil record or whether the record is continuous as that of U/S Presidents. And if there are gaps, it does no matter whether they can be explained plausibly. The fossil record has nothing to tell us about whether the interaction of 11 cts-retinal with with rhodopsin, transducin, and phosphodieterase [irreducibly complex systems] could have developed step by step." Basically, he's saying the fossils can't tell us anything about micobiological data.
So what about the Dating Methods that they use to carbon date fossils? It's faulty. Its only accurate to about 1000 years. They date the bones by which layer they are found in. But in Canada, they actually found more complex items in 'older' layers and more simple items in 'newer' layers.
What about dinosaurs? They definitely lived. Actually, they have found man's steps next to dinosaur steps. And in the book of Job, it talks about dinosaurs.
And what about the age of the Earth? I have one friend in particular who gets really upset about the age of the earth. He wants to know exactly how old it is and he can't accept that it is new. Even among Christians, there is a debate. But the point isn't necessarily how old it is, but the fact that a Creator created it rather than evolution. Getting caught up in the age is a side factor that distracts away from Creation vs. Evolution. We don't know how old it is and that's that. But we do know that GOD created it. But here's a trippy question that a friend of mine asked when I asked him about this... what if the earth was created with age built into it? Like how Adam was created as a full blown adult. Hmmm... interesting thought, isn't it?
So, if you have made it this far, you will be happy to know I am done! :) Like I said, this was a long post, but I think such a vital one! I found out last week that the fourth quarter curriculum for tenth grade science is Evolution! It's a theory, but it's taught as fact. And we need to know the real, scientific facts. Besides just being astounding, they are proof that Evolution could not possibly be true. And the proof is scientific, not based on our feelings or hopes. Science refutes Evolution, that's all there is to it.
At the end of the night, our pastor reminded us of two verses.
1 Corinthians 13:2 "And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." Knowing scientific fact is good and interesting and profitable, but if we do not have love for others in our hearts, it does no good. We must start with loving others and from that a desire will grow to share the truth with them. God does not desire for us to smack people around with His Word or with the truth. He desires that we love people just as He loves us.
2 Timothy 4:2 "Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching." When Paul wrote this book, he was at the end of his life- a life that he would lose because he was a follower and preacher of Christ. Yet, even though his time was coming to end, he encourages us to preach the Word. Preach the Word because we know it is sharper than a two edged sword, able to convince and convict even the hardest of hearts. And let us pray that it would be our earnest desire to redeem the time in these last days- that we would share hope to a dying and lost world. That we would not be content with our own salvation, but that we would love others more than our own time and desires. And let us pray for each other too that we would remain diligent in seeking after our Father and knowing what great and mighty things He has done and will do.
Every week, I learn so much that I think each lesson is my favorite until I hear the next week's topic. But I was especially thrilled to find out we were covering Evolution and Darwinism. I have never really understood either and because of that, I have shied away from any conversation concerning either topic. Why isn't evolution true? "Because God created the earth, that's why!" That has always been my response... until now! The last couple of posts, I talked about using science to prove the existence of God, and this one is the same. In fact, I think science is God's best creation yet... this information is so clear and so overwhelmingly in support of an intentionally created universe, it blows my mind! There is so much information, but I promise if you can get through it all, it will be worth it. Remember that this is taken from an hour long sermon, so that's why there is so much to read. I am going to do one long post so that the train of thought doesn't get interrupted. Here we go....
There are two kinds of science... Empirical Science (testing of regularities of every day happenings) and Forensic Science (looking at past occurrences to figure out what happened... think CSI). The basic tool of Forensic Science is the Principle of Uniformity. It says that causes in the past were like the causes we observe today. In other words, by the Principle of Uniformity, we assume that the world worked in the past just like it works today; especially when it comes to causes. If Natural Law can do the job today, then the perishable of Uniformity would lead us to conclude that Natural Laws do the job in the past. However, if intelligence can do the job today, and only intelligence.... then the same holds true for the past.
In A.E. Wilder-Smith's book, He Who Thinks Must Believe, he shares an story. It isn't written in my notes, so I will just write the bottom line of his analogy. Basically, he says that canned food is a contrary to evolution. A sealed can of food is void of life. Basically, there is nothing in it that will grow (hopefully). So, if you let that can sit for a long time unopened, it will not grow into something new. It will stay as it is unless someone comes along and adds life to it. Life cannot spring from non-life. That is common sense.
But our 'common sense' is actually the Principle of Uniformity. Thus, in accordance with the last two postings, Evolutionists must answer three questions:
1. How does something come from nothing?
2. How does complexity come from non-complexity?
3. How does life come from non-life?
There are no answers to these questions. So, there are three basic categories that the Darwin Model must deal with:
1. The Origin of the Universe
2. The Origin of Life
3. The Origin of New Life Forms
Before we look at these questions, lets look at one quote from a Darwinist (Richard Dawkins) on how they explain away complex design:
"The information content of the human brain expressed in bits is probably comparable to the total number of connections among the neurons- about a hundred trillion bits. If written out in English, say, that information would fill some twenty million volumes, as many as in the world's largest libraries. The equivalent of twenty million books in inside the heads of every one of us. The brain is a very big place in a very small space.... The neurochemistry of the brain is astonishingly busy. The circuitry of a machine more wonderful than any devised by humans." He then goes on to simply say no one designed it.
He states elsewhere, "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."
Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, another Darwinist, sees the appearance of design so clearly that he warns that "biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." They have to be careful that they don't turn into Creationists!
And how do they respond to the question of life coming from non-life? The argument is this, "Either there is an intelligent cause or a non-intelligent cause." Concerning a non-intelligent cause, Michael Denton, a Microbiologist and an atheist says, "The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that this is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable event. Such occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle."!!! That is from an atheist! Life on planet earth, according to Fred Hoyle, had to be created by an intelligent creator- aliens. Why? Because he calculated the probability of life arising by spontaneous generation was effectively zero. Yet, he refuses to point to the existence of God. Why? Well, that will be in next week's study.
Michael Behe, a Microbiologist, has said that the probability of getting one protein molecule from nothing is like sending a blind man into the Sahara Desert and asking him to find one grain of sand... three times!
So how do they respond, "It's just so." That is not science, that is faith. And their faith is contrary to proven scientific evidence.
Moving to the next question... that of new life forms or Macroevolution. Naturalistic Evolutionists claim that this one-celled amoeba (or something like it) came together by spontaneous generation (i.e. without intelligent intervention) in a warm little pond somewhere on the very early earth. According to their theory, all biological life has evolved from that first amoeba without any intelligent guidance at all. This, of course, is the theory of Macroevolution: from the infantile, to the reptile, to the crocodile, to the Gentile. Or, from the goo to you via the zoo. So let's take a look and see if that theory has any scientific merit.
Defining EVOLUTION is perhaps the greatest point of confusion in the creation vs. evolution controversy.
MICROEVOLUTION: Changes or variation within a species. It happens, science proves it. Example: Darwin's finches and bacteria mutation.
MACROEVOLUTION: Small successive changes over a long amount of time that lead to a new species. This has never been observed. Never has any species CHANGED FROM ONE SPECIES TO ANOTHER. Example: A cow to a whale, reptile to a bird, monkey to a man.
Evolutionists claim the mechanism by which a creature changes from one animal to another is through "Natural Selection". This is not the proper word to label this process, why? Since, in their words, the process is evolution is, by definition, without intelligence, there is no "selection" at all going on. It's a blind process. The term "natural selection" simply means the fittest creature survives.
Natural selection has never been observed to produce new life forms. Bacteria, even though it changed quite a bit, has always remained bacteria. The finches that Darwin observed always remained finches. They use microevolution to prove macroevolution.
The problem: Macroevolution is exactly what Darwinists claim from the data. They say that observable micro changes can be extrapolated to prove that unobservable microevolution has occurred. They make no distinction between microevolution and macroevolution, and thus use the evidence from micro to prove macro. By failing to make this critical distinction, Darwinists can dupe the general public into thinking that any observable change in any organism proves all life has evolved from the first one-celled creature. No matter how much something changes within its own species, it has never changed into a completely different species.
There are four reasons for this:
1. Genetic Limits: Artificial Selection vs. Natural Selection
Artificial Selection has an end in view, has an intelligent process, and has intelligent choices.
Natural Selection has no end, it is a blind process and has non-intelligent choices. Basically this means that nothing is done by a creator- its just chance. But the interesting thing is even when scientists intelligently manipulate creatures with an end in mind- which is the antithesis of blind Darwin process- macroevolution still doesn't work!
2. Clinical change: The changes in microevolution go in a cycle. It never turns into something completely new. For example, Darwin's finches' beaks got longer during a certain time of year and shorter during other times of the year- but they never changed into something besides beaks.
3. Irreducible Complexity: In 1859, Charles Darwin wrote, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." We now know that there are many organs, systems and processes in life that fit that description. He could not see what we see now... this saying contradicts evolution and we now have proof of this. An irreducibly complex system is "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of these parts causes the system to effectively break down."
An example of this is blood clotting. If our blood did not clot in the precise way that it does, our blood would actually crystallize. So it could not have had an 'in between' stage while we were 'evolving' because this system is so complex. Irreducibly complex biochemical systems include: blood clotting, cilia (cell propulsion organism), and vision. This means that new life can't come into existence by the Darwin method of slight, successive changes over a long period of time.
Michael Behe, a leading authority on the subject says, "There is currently no experimental evidence to show that natural selection can get around irreducible complexity."
4. Non-viability of transitional forms: Since natural selection is slight, successive changes over a long period of time, there would be these transitional repti-birds, or cowhales, or mankeys. These guys would be useless while they are in that transitional phase.... a cow with a whale body? They would be weak... and natural selection eliminates things that aren't fit- so how did they survive? Its contradictory to the theory of survival of the fittest.
Some extra questions that come up regarding Evolution
What about the fossil record?
Darwin, although oblivious to the complexity of the cell, still faced a problem in facing the fossil record. He says concerning the lack of transitional fossils, "Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this, perhaps is the most obvious and grave objection which can be argued against my theory." Those are Darwin's words. He is admitting there is no evidence of transitional forms, but he thought that with time, archaeologists would surely find some. They have never found even one.
Stephen J. Gould (an Evolutionist), the late Harvard Paleontologist states: "The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. The appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." Therefore, there is no evidence for gradual transformation. So, he's saying that since it could not have happened gradually, it must've happened all at once! To him, the lack of evidence equals a new theory that doesn't need evidence.
Jonathan Wells writes, "The fossil record is so strong, and the event so dramatic, that it has become known as 'The Cambrian explosion', or Biology's Big Bang." This theory doesn't support evolution, it actually supports creationism. There was a big bang... we just happen to know that God was the one who created it.
Another question: What about the apparent progression of skulls from monkey to man?
Did you know that 99% of the biology of an organism in its soft anatomy? Which is inaccessible in a fossil? So, in a fossil, we only have 1% of the information that can be found about it.
Also, we have all seen the artistic renderings of skulls from monkey to man. But just because you line something up, doesn't mean that they progressed. For example, we can line up a teaspoon, tablespoon, cup and kettle, but it doesn't mean that they all evolved from a teaspoon. In fact, on the those posters, if you read the fine print, you will see the disclaimer that it is actually an artistic rendering rather than fact. The same with drawing the different stages of monkeys turning into men.
Furthermore, the fossil record is irrelevant to the question. Michael Behe writes, "Anatomy is, quite simply, irrelevant to the question of whether evolution could take place on the molecular level. So is fossil record. It no longer matters whether there are huge gaps in the fossil record or whether the record is continuous as that of U/S Presidents. And if there are gaps, it does no matter whether they can be explained plausibly. The fossil record has nothing to tell us about whether the interaction of 11 cts-retinal with with rhodopsin, transducin, and phosphodieterase [irreducibly complex systems] could have developed step by step." Basically, he's saying the fossils can't tell us anything about micobiological data.
So what about the Dating Methods that they use to carbon date fossils? It's faulty. Its only accurate to about 1000 years. They date the bones by which layer they are found in. But in Canada, they actually found more complex items in 'older' layers and more simple items in 'newer' layers.
What about dinosaurs? They definitely lived. Actually, they have found man's steps next to dinosaur steps. And in the book of Job, it talks about dinosaurs.
And what about the age of the Earth? I have one friend in particular who gets really upset about the age of the earth. He wants to know exactly how old it is and he can't accept that it is new. Even among Christians, there is a debate. But the point isn't necessarily how old it is, but the fact that a Creator created it rather than evolution. Getting caught up in the age is a side factor that distracts away from Creation vs. Evolution. We don't know how old it is and that's that. But we do know that GOD created it. But here's a trippy question that a friend of mine asked when I asked him about this... what if the earth was created with age built into it? Like how Adam was created as a full blown adult. Hmmm... interesting thought, isn't it?
So, if you have made it this far, you will be happy to know I am done! :) Like I said, this was a long post, but I think such a vital one! I found out last week that the fourth quarter curriculum for tenth grade science is Evolution! It's a theory, but it's taught as fact. And we need to know the real, scientific facts. Besides just being astounding, they are proof that Evolution could not possibly be true. And the proof is scientific, not based on our feelings or hopes. Science refutes Evolution, that's all there is to it.
At the end of the night, our pastor reminded us of two verses.
1 Corinthians 13:2 "And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." Knowing scientific fact is good and interesting and profitable, but if we do not have love for others in our hearts, it does no good. We must start with loving others and from that a desire will grow to share the truth with them. God does not desire for us to smack people around with His Word or with the truth. He desires that we love people just as He loves us.
2 Timothy 4:2 "Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching." When Paul wrote this book, he was at the end of his life- a life that he would lose because he was a follower and preacher of Christ. Yet, even though his time was coming to end, he encourages us to preach the Word. Preach the Word because we know it is sharper than a two edged sword, able to convince and convict even the hardest of hearts. And let us pray that it would be our earnest desire to redeem the time in these last days- that we would share hope to a dying and lost world. That we would not be content with our own salvation, but that we would love others more than our own time and desires. And let us pray for each other too that we would remain diligent in seeking after our Father and knowing what great and mighty things He has done and will do.
For Those of You Who Are Being Pruned Like Me!
from Streams in the Desert, September 19
My Father is the gardener. John 15:1
It is a comforting thought that trouble, in whatever form it comes to us, is a heavenly messenger that brings us something from God. Outwardly it may appear painful or even destructive, but inwardly its spiritual work produces blessings. Many of the richest blessings we inherited are the fruit of sorrow or pain. We should never forget that redemption, the world's greatest blessing, is the fruit of the world's greatest sorrow. And whenever a time of deep pruning comes and the knife cuts deeply and the pain is severe, what an inexpressible comfort it is to know: "My Father is the gardener."
John Vincent, a Methodist Episcopal bishop of the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries and a leader of the Sunday school movement in America, once told of being in a large greenhouse where clusters of luscious grapes were hanging on each side. The owner of the greenhouse told him, "When the new gardener came here, he said he would not work with the vines unless he could cut them completely down to the stalk. I allowed him to do so, and we had no grapes for two years, but this is now the result."
There is rich symbolism in this account of the pruning process when applied to the Christian life. Pruning seems to be destroying the vine, and the gardener appears to be cutting everything away. Yet he sees the future and knows that the final result will be the enrichment of the life of the vine, and a greater abundance of fruit.
There are many blessings we will never receive until we are ready to pay the price of pain, for the pain of suffering is the only way to reach them. J.R. Miller
I walked a mile with Pleasure,
She chattered all the way;
But left me none the wiser
For all she had to say.
I walked a mile with Sorrow,
And ne'er a word said she;
But oh, the things I learned from her
When Sorrow walked with me.
My Father is the gardener. John 15:1
It is a comforting thought that trouble, in whatever form it comes to us, is a heavenly messenger that brings us something from God. Outwardly it may appear painful or even destructive, but inwardly its spiritual work produces blessings. Many of the richest blessings we inherited are the fruit of sorrow or pain. We should never forget that redemption, the world's greatest blessing, is the fruit of the world's greatest sorrow. And whenever a time of deep pruning comes and the knife cuts deeply and the pain is severe, what an inexpressible comfort it is to know: "My Father is the gardener."
John Vincent, a Methodist Episcopal bishop of the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries and a leader of the Sunday school movement in America, once told of being in a large greenhouse where clusters of luscious grapes were hanging on each side. The owner of the greenhouse told him, "When the new gardener came here, he said he would not work with the vines unless he could cut them completely down to the stalk. I allowed him to do so, and we had no grapes for two years, but this is now the result."
There is rich symbolism in this account of the pruning process when applied to the Christian life. Pruning seems to be destroying the vine, and the gardener appears to be cutting everything away. Yet he sees the future and knows that the final result will be the enrichment of the life of the vine, and a greater abundance of fruit.
There are many blessings we will never receive until we are ready to pay the price of pain, for the pain of suffering is the only way to reach them. J.R. Miller
I walked a mile with Pleasure,
She chattered all the way;
But left me none the wiser
For all she had to say.
I walked a mile with Sorrow,
And ne'er a word said she;
But oh, the things I learned from her
When Sorrow walked with me.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Holla at yo' girls!
This past week, my mom and Kelly came to visit me. It was so awesome! We had a total girls week complete with shopping, laying on the beach, going out to eat, getting lost, and of course, laughing til we cried. It was good for my soul.
And my mom totally spoiled me. It's amazing how being taken care of by your mother isn't something you grow out of! My mom is my HERO!
Thanks for coming out girls! I had a blast!!!
i stand corrected
ok, so maybe that wasn't my first myspace picture (just the most devious). i totally forgot about a conversation i had when i ran into a parent at the grocery store. here was our conversation:
her: "oh, aren't you ms. elson?"
me: "why, as a matter of fact, i AM ms. elson!" (ok, it went something like that)
her: "you're my daughter's teacher. i recognize you because there's a picture of you on her myspace."
me: "uhhhh..... what? uuuhhhh..... that's the strangest thing in the world- i should start a booth at the grape festival."
ok, i made up both of my answers to make it more interesting. but the point i am eventually going to get around to is that i remembered her daughter bringing a camera and taking pictures when the kids were doing skits. guess i made it in one of those??!!??
and... i was just informed my sista in law has a picture of me. which is allowed. she is family. and i don't require family to have my copyrighted permission.
this was a weird post. but i just wanted you to know :).
her: "oh, aren't you ms. elson?"
me: "why, as a matter of fact, i AM ms. elson!" (ok, it went something like that)
her: "you're my daughter's teacher. i recognize you because there's a picture of you on her myspace."
me: "uhhhh..... what? uuuhhhh..... that's the strangest thing in the world- i should start a booth at the grape festival."
ok, i made up both of my answers to make it more interesting. but the point i am eventually going to get around to is that i remembered her daughter bringing a camera and taking pictures when the kids were doing skits. guess i made it in one of those??!!??
and... i was just informed my sista in law has a picture of me. which is allowed. she is family. and i don't require family to have my copyrighted permission.
this was a weird post. but i just wanted you to know :).
Monday, September 18, 2006
MySpace Debut
Now don't get excited all you MySpacers out there. I did not start a space.. BUT I did recently make my appearance in the world of weirdness (sorry! I just don't get the point!), though not on purpose. I WAS TRICKED!!!! A friend at church wanted a picture of her and I and I thought.... hmmmm.... weird. And then my built in MySpace alert went off and I just knew where that picture was heading. And sure enough... in the morning... here I am in my very first MySpace picture! If I would have known, I at least would have stared dreamily into the mirror :).
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Rejoice in the Promiser!
May you rejoice today in the goodness of our King
May you take refuge in the shelter of the Most High
May you look upon the darkness, the windy road
and rest.
Rest not only in the fulfillment of promises,
but rest safely in the arms of the great Promiser
For He has promised GOOD things,
and though your eyes cannot see the finished masterpiece
He is working still.
"Though the fig tree may not blossom,
Nor fruit be on the vines;
Though the labor of the olive may fail,
And the fields yield no food;
Though the flock may be cut off from the fold,
And there be no herd in the stalls—
Yet I will rejoice in the LORD,
I will joy in the God of my salvation.
The LORD God is my strength;
He will make my feet like deer’s feet,
And He will make me walk on my high hills."
Habakkuk 3:17-19
May you take refuge in the shelter of the Most High
May you look upon the darkness, the windy road
and rest.
Rest not only in the fulfillment of promises,
but rest safely in the arms of the great Promiser
For He has promised GOOD things,
and though your eyes cannot see the finished masterpiece
He is working still.
"Though the fig tree may not blossom,
Nor fruit be on the vines;
Though the labor of the olive may fail,
And the fields yield no food;
Though the flock may be cut off from the fold,
And there be no herd in the stalls—
Yet I will rejoice in the LORD,
I will joy in the God of my salvation.
The LORD God is my strength;
He will make my feet like deer’s feet,
And He will make me walk on my high hills."
Habakkuk 3:17-19
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Apologetics: Part 5- Scientific Proof that God Exists!
(continued from Part 4)
In the last post, I went through a couple of different scientific proofs that God really does exists. As Christians, we have to understand that we have scientific proof for our belief. We actually do have a scientific foundation to back us up and we don't need to back down or shrink away once someone starts talking about science. Instead, we should equip ourselves with the knowledge that is out there in order to engage in these discussions. Most of these scientific proofs are new to me and I am so excited about them. If you didn't read Part 4, you might want to read that one first because this is a continuation....
SECOND SCIENTIFIC PROOF THAT GOD EXISTS: DEVINE DESIGN
The Bible says:
"The heavens are telling of all the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands." Psalms 19:1
"For You formed my inwards parts; You wove me in my mother's womb. I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; wonderful are Your works, and my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret" Psalms 139:13-15
"For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens. He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited, 'I am the Lord, and there is none else.'" Isaiah 45:18
But what does science say?
Teleological Argument
This term comes from the Greek word, "telos", which means, "design."
This argument goes like this:
All design has a designer.
The Universe has highly complex design.
Therefore, there must be a Great Designer of the Universe.
Isaac Newton said, "This most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being."
This is the common sense approach. William Paley once said, "Every watch requires a watchmaker." If you were walking down the beach and find a Rolex lying in the sand, what would you think was its cause? Years of wind, rain, erosion, and waves caused it? Natural forces? How much more complex and intricate is the design of this universe, our planet, the human body? The more complex the design, the greater the intelligence required to produce it.
If you look at all of the intertwined, interdependent, and fine-tuned systems
So, if every language requires intelligence to design, and every meesage requires an author.... Then Who is the author of the DNA message in our cells? It could not have come from rocks, gases, dust, or a primordial slime pond.
Did you know that the message contained in just one single-cell contains as much information in it's DNA as 1000 complete sets of Encyclopedi Britannica. So if a simple message, "Jesus is Lord," in alphabet cookies requires someone to design it... why would we think a message that is equal to 1000 sets of encyclopedia could come from rocks. To believe that this one-cell creature came into existence by natural laws is like believing 1000 sets of encyclopedias came from an explosion in a print shop.
AND... there are TONS of other proofs. For example, DNA chicken and egg dilemma- what came first, the cell that contains the DNA or the DNA required to make that cell? And where did either one originally come from?
If everything can be explained as coming from matter (i.e. rocks and dust), how do they explain things that are non-material like thought reason, emotion? How much does love weigh? What is the chemical composition of a thought? How could unintelligent matter produce intelligent life?
TO SUM THESE LAST TWO POSTS UP:
Beginning- If the Universe had a beginning (which it had to have somewhere down the line), it HAD to have had an outside cause greater than itself (i.e. God).
Design- if the Universe has a design (check out all the fine balances up there in the Anthropic Constants section) it must have a Designer.
DNA- the message that told fish to have scales, trees to have leaves... didn't write itself. Where did that message come from?
Bottom line, when you look at all the real scientific evidence (not just the snippets people use), it takes WAY more faith to belive there isn't a God.
If you have read all this and you have never really thought about God before. Or you have and you've never really reached a conclusion. Or you believe there's a God, but don't know what you want to do about it, I'd like to share just a few words. These aren't Pastor's Tripp's words, these are mine. This post has the scientific proof that there is a God. And my question to you is what are you going to do with that information? I am going to link it to smoking. Once the world found out that smoking causes cancer, most people stopped. But some people still smoke and everyone thinks, "What the heck? That's going to kill you!" Knowing about God is the same thing (but without the scary, self-inducing cancer part). Once you know the truth, God asks you to make a decision. Unlike cigarettes, you cannot stay away from God and live happily ever after. God created us to worship Him, to love and TO BE LOVED by Him. There isn't a more perfect, faithful, forgiving love on this planet that can even compare to God's. If you have decided there is a God, I would encourage you to move to the next step and decide what you are going to do with that knowledge. What He wants is for you to come to Him... to acknowledge Him in this crazy world. He wants you to believe on His Son that died as a replacement for our sins... and He wants to shower you in His love. The Bible say if you seek Him, you will find Him.
One thing that makes people shy is they don't want to give up their 'life'. If you knew me from age ... oh... 16-22, you would know I was pretty wild. That was honestly my biggest fear when coming to the Lord. I didn't know what I would do with my time if I couldn't hang out and party with my friends. I didn't think I would ever have "fun" again. But I also knew that my life was a wreck. It was a wreck on the outside and I was miserable on the inside. I kept looking for new ways to "create" happiness, but I had a hole inside of me that no earthly thing could fill- I know because I tried most things... better job, better boyfriend :), better house, lost weight, got better clothes and hair... sound familiar to anyone? But the hole I was trying to fill can only be filled by our loving Savior. If this is you... if you are running, if you think the next job, the next guy or girl, the next new car will improve your life, it won't. That desire you have for happiness and PURE JOY can only be found in Jesus. Take the intellectual knowledge you now have and look to God for the fulfillment of your purpose. Your life has meaning beyond acquiring stuff and finding the perfect job, house, mate, car, etc. You were created by God for so much more and He is willing and able to show you a much more excellent way!
In the last post, I went through a couple of different scientific proofs that God really does exists. As Christians, we have to understand that we have scientific proof for our belief. We actually do have a scientific foundation to back us up and we don't need to back down or shrink away once someone starts talking about science. Instead, we should equip ourselves with the knowledge that is out there in order to engage in these discussions. Most of these scientific proofs are new to me and I am so excited about them. If you didn't read Part 4, you might want to read that one first because this is a continuation....
SECOND SCIENTIFIC PROOF THAT GOD EXISTS: DEVINE DESIGN
The Bible says:
"The heavens are telling of all the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands." Psalms 19:1
"For You formed my inwards parts; You wove me in my mother's womb. I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; wonderful are Your works, and my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret" Psalms 139:13-15
"For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens. He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited, 'I am the Lord, and there is none else.'" Isaiah 45:18
But what does science say?
Teleological Argument
This term comes from the Greek word, "telos", which means, "design."
This argument goes like this:
All design has a designer.
The Universe has highly complex design.
Therefore, there must be a Great Designer of the Universe.
Isaac Newton said, "This most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being."
This is the common sense approach. William Paley once said, "Every watch requires a watchmaker." If you were walking down the beach and find a Rolex lying in the sand, what would you think was its cause? Years of wind, rain, erosion, and waves caused it? Natural forces? How much more complex and intricate is the design of this universe, our planet, the human body? The more complex the design, the greater the intelligence required to produce it.
If you look at all of the intertwined, interdependent, and fine-tuned systems
- Universe, planets, sloar system
- Our atmosphere and the Earth
- Biological systems, plants, animals, human body
Maybe it's all perfectly tuned because there is a perfect fine-tuner!
There has never been observed any natural law that can explain this perfect order. Remember the Law of Entropy? Nature causes things to disorder, not to gain order.
Our universe is extremely hostile towards life, yet it is perfectly tweaked to enable us to live on this one little planet. This is called the Anthropic Principle, the universe is fine-tuned (desgned) to support life on earth.
The slightest change in condtitions and we couldn't survive. There are so many examples, here are just a few:
Anthropic Constant 1: Oxygen Level
On earth, oxygen comprises 21 percent of the atmosphere. That precise figure is an Anthropic Constant that makes life on earth possible. If oxygen were 25% fires would erupt sponaneously, if it were 15%, human beings would suffocate.
Anthropic Constant 2: Atmospheric Transparency
If the atmosphere were less tranparent, not enough solar radiation would reach the earth's surface. If it were transparent we would bombarded with far too much solar radiation down here.
Anthropic Constant 3: Moon-Earth Gravitational Interaction
If the interaction were greater than it currently is, tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe. If it were less, orbital changes would cause climatic instabilities. In either event, life on earth would be impossible.
Anthropic Constant 4: Carbon Dioxide Level
If the CO2 level were higher than it is now, a runaway greenhouse effect would develop (we'd all burn up). If the level were lower than it is now, plants would not be able to maintain efficient photosynthesis (we'd all suffocate).
Anthropic Constant 5: Gravity
If the gravitional force were altered by 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent, our sun would not exist, and therefore neither would we. Talk about precision!
Anthropic Constant 6: Centrifugal Force
If the centrifugal of planetary movements did not precisely balance the gravitational forces, nothing could be around the sun.
Anthropic Constant 10: Jupiter
If Jupiter were not in it's current orbit, the earth would be bombarded with space material. Jupiter's gravitational field acts as a cosmic vacuum cleaner, attracting asteroids and comets that might otherwise strike earth.
Anthropic Constant 11: The Earth's Crust
If the thickness of the earth's crust were greater, too much oxygen would be transferred to the crust to support life. If it were thinner, volcanic and tetonic activity would make life impossible.
The Bible already told us that "For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things and in Him all things hold together" Col 1:16-17
So, there is no plausible explanation for the perfect design of our universe other than a perfect designer. Astronaut John Glenn, looking out of the Space Shuttle Discovery said, "To look out at this kind of creation and not believe in God is to me impossible."
ANOTHER PROOF: The DNA Message
Every message has an author... all messages require intelligence. Back in school, we were taught that a "simple" single-cell amoeba came together, then came to life by spontaneous generation (without any intelligent intervention= rocks, gases, dust partials made this little form), in a primordial slime-pond billions of years ago. And that all biological life evolved from that first amoeba without any intelligent cause (Theory of Microevolution). Of course, they still can't explain where the rocks, gases, dust, or slime-pond came from.
But this "simple-cell" theory ran into a huge problem in 1953. James Watson and Francis Crick discovered DNA. To simplify it- DNA is a language that contains a message for building all living things.
So, if every language requires intelligence to design, and every meesage requires an author.... Then Who is the author of the DNA message in our cells? It could not have come from rocks, gases, dust, or a primordial slime pond.
Did you know that the message contained in just one single-cell contains as much information in it's DNA as 1000 complete sets of Encyclopedi Britannica. So if a simple message, "Jesus is Lord," in alphabet cookies requires someone to design it... why would we think a message that is equal to 1000 sets of encyclopedia could come from rocks. To believe that this one-cell creature came into existence by natural laws is like believing 1000 sets of encyclopedias came from an explosion in a print shop.
AND... there are TONS of other proofs. For example, DNA chicken and egg dilemma- what came first, the cell that contains the DNA or the DNA required to make that cell? And where did either one originally come from?
If everything can be explained as coming from matter (i.e. rocks and dust), how do they explain things that are non-material like thought reason, emotion? How much does love weigh? What is the chemical composition of a thought? How could unintelligent matter produce intelligent life?
TO SUM THESE LAST TWO POSTS UP:
Beginning- If the Universe had a beginning (which it had to have somewhere down the line), it HAD to have had an outside cause greater than itself (i.e. God).
Design- if the Universe has a design (check out all the fine balances up there in the Anthropic Constants section) it must have a Designer.
DNA- the message that told fish to have scales, trees to have leaves... didn't write itself. Where did that message come from?
Bottom line, when you look at all the real scientific evidence (not just the snippets people use), it takes WAY more faith to belive there isn't a God.
If you have read all this and you have never really thought about God before. Or you have and you've never really reached a conclusion. Or you believe there's a God, but don't know what you want to do about it, I'd like to share just a few words. These aren't Pastor's Tripp's words, these are mine. This post has the scientific proof that there is a God. And my question to you is what are you going to do with that information? I am going to link it to smoking. Once the world found out that smoking causes cancer, most people stopped. But some people still smoke and everyone thinks, "What the heck? That's going to kill you!" Knowing about God is the same thing (but without the scary, self-inducing cancer part). Once you know the truth, God asks you to make a decision. Unlike cigarettes, you cannot stay away from God and live happily ever after. God created us to worship Him, to love and TO BE LOVED by Him. There isn't a more perfect, faithful, forgiving love on this planet that can even compare to God's. If you have decided there is a God, I would encourage you to move to the next step and decide what you are going to do with that knowledge. What He wants is for you to come to Him... to acknowledge Him in this crazy world. He wants you to believe on His Son that died as a replacement for our sins... and He wants to shower you in His love. The Bible say if you seek Him, you will find Him.
One thing that makes people shy is they don't want to give up their 'life'. If you knew me from age ... oh... 16-22, you would know I was pretty wild. That was honestly my biggest fear when coming to the Lord. I didn't know what I would do with my time if I couldn't hang out and party with my friends. I didn't think I would ever have "fun" again. But I also knew that my life was a wreck. It was a wreck on the outside and I was miserable on the inside. I kept looking for new ways to "create" happiness, but I had a hole inside of me that no earthly thing could fill- I know because I tried most things... better job, better boyfriend :), better house, lost weight, got better clothes and hair... sound familiar to anyone? But the hole I was trying to fill can only be filled by our loving Savior. If this is you... if you are running, if you think the next job, the next guy or girl, the next new car will improve your life, it won't. That desire you have for happiness and PURE JOY can only be found in Jesus. Take the intellectual knowledge you now have and look to God for the fulfillment of your purpose. Your life has meaning beyond acquiring stuff and finding the perfect job, house, mate, car, etc. You were created by God for so much more and He is willing and able to show you a much more excellent way!
Apologetics Part 4: Proof for the Existence of God!
(continued from apologetics: Part 3)
Ok, so after we have set out some of the foundations of knowing WHY we believe, we can start answering some of the hard questions. Here are some of the questions we'll (I say "WE" because I am basically typing straight from my pastor's notes... so its pretty much like him talking with me typing :)) talk about today:
Can you prove that God exists?
Is Science the enemy of Faith and Christianity?
How can we know a God exists that we cannot see?
We'll start with these two questions- why do you, or anyone, or anything exist? And why is there something instead of nothing?
Well, we know what the Bible says about this: Col 1:16, Gen 1:1, John 1:1. But, an Atheist doesn't care what the Bible says, so these are things you can share with people who don't believe. And remember, the point of defending our faith isn't to make us "right", its to lead people to believe that God exists. And once they believe that God exists, we can point them to Jesus, the Savior of our souls. Its all about Jesus and salvation.
FAITH AND SCIENCE
It seems that in the mind set of the world today, faith and science are at odds with each other. Stereotypically (but not in actual truth), Science is for the intellectual and faith is for the hopeful dreamer. But if scientists really want truth, and the church really wants truth, they are not really against each other- they want the same thing. The problem is when someone brings their own agenda and tries to make either science or religion fit.
But what if we set all that aside and just look at the evidence- a pure pursuit of Truth... the very definition of science= a search for a cause. And what we will see is that the science actually proves the existence of God.
A few quotes:
Galileo: "Science tells you how the heavens go, and the Bible tells you how to go to heaven."
Albert Einstein: "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind."
Allan Sandago: (A one time atheist and called the greatest observational cosmologist in the world): "It was science that drove me to the conclusion that the world is much more complicated than can be explained by science... It was only through the supernatural that I can understand the mystery of existence."
If we exist.. then WHY and HOW? If there were no God, then why is there something instead of nothing?
There are only two possibilities for anything that exists:
1. Either it has always existed and therefore has no cause.
2. Or, it had a beginning and was caused by something or someone else. It cannot be self-caused.
The Bible says, "It is He who made the earth by His power, who established the world by His wisdom, and by His understanding He has stretched out the heavens" (Her 10:12). But what does Science say?
FIRST PROOF: COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
Cosmological comes from the Greek word 'cosmos' which means 'world' or 'universe'.
The Cosmological Argument proves that the Universe had a beginning. It goes like this, everything that had a beginning had a cause. The Universe had a beginning. Therefore, the universe HAD to have a cause (i.e. a Creator). If the Universe had a beginning, it had to have a beginner (someone who caused it). This is called the LAW OF CASUALITY. Without it, science itself is impossible because science is a search for causes.
Until around 1916 the time of Albert Einstein, atheists could comfort themselves with the belief that the universe was eternal (meaning that it had always existed) and so it did not need a cause. But since then, the scientific evidence has overwhelmingly proved that the universe had a beginning. Einstein was bummed when he began to realize where his calculations were going of his Theory of General Relativity. Until then, Einstein believed that the universe was eternal, but now the evidence pointed to a definite beginning to all time, space and matter.
General Relativity predicted an expanding universe- moving outward from a single point. Meaning it STARTED at some point.
In 1927, Astronomer Edwin Hubble looking through a 100 inch telescope confirmed that the universe was expanding. He discovered what we call the "red shift" in light from every galaxy- meaning it is moving away from us. In other words, the universe is expanding from a single point in the distant point.
BUT GOD HAD ALREADY SAID THIS IN THE BOOK OF ISAIAH: "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, who stretches out the heavens like a curtain and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in" (Isaiah 40:22). By the way, in case you missed it, God says here that the earth is ROUND... long before explorers "discovered" the world is round, God already told us that. How did God know? Because He created it.
Another proof for the beginning of the universe...
The Second Law of Thermodynamic (a scientific law) proves that the earth had a set beginning. To simplify this law, it says, the universe is running out of usable energy (like a running car, it will ultimately run out of gas).
(The 1st Law shows that the universe only has finite [set amount] of usable energy,… the 2nd Law shows its running out).
So, if there is only so much energy and it will eventually run out, then the universe had to have a beginning (with that original amount of energy). If it had always existed, that limited amount of energy would have run out by now.
Also, within the Second Law of Thermodynamics is the Law of Entropy= which simply means nature brings things from ORDER TO DISORDER... that is, with time, things fall apart. So, if the universe is becoming less ordered, then where did the original order come from? If natural causes couldn't have caused it-… who caused it? It HAD to have a Creator.
OTHER SCIENTIFIC PROOFS
The Radiation Echo: In 1965, two scientists, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered radiation waves that confirm the earth burst suddenly into existence. Penzias' Quote: "The best data we have is exactly what I would have predicted had I nothing to go on but the first 5 books of Moses, the Psalms, and the Bible as a whole."
PHILOSOPHICAL LINE OF EVIDENCE FOR THE BEGINNING
1. An infinite number of days has no end
2. But today is the end of history
3. Therefore, there were not an infinite number of days before today
*THE KEY= if there was a beginning there must be a beginning (an outsider cause-… God). This will always be the fundamental problem for anyone who denies the existence of God. If there is no God, then why is there something instead of nothing?
Atheists have tried to explain it away by saying things like, "Rocks crashed together...or gases did this..… or dust partials did that...". BUT, they can never explain WHO made the first rocks, gases, or dust.
To sum up this loooooonnnngggg post:
The Cosmological Argument: The Universe had a beginning, and someone greater than the universe HAD to cause all of this. This is scientific... this helps to support the existence of God. In the next post... I'll continue the scientific proofs for the existence of God.
Ok, so after we have set out some of the foundations of knowing WHY we believe, we can start answering some of the hard questions. Here are some of the questions we'll (I say "WE" because I am basically typing straight from my pastor's notes... so its pretty much like him talking with me typing :)) talk about today:
Can you prove that God exists?
Is Science the enemy of Faith and Christianity?
How can we know a God exists that we cannot see?
We'll start with these two questions- why do you, or anyone, or anything exist? And why is there something instead of nothing?
Well, we know what the Bible says about this: Col 1:16, Gen 1:1, John 1:1. But, an Atheist doesn't care what the Bible says, so these are things you can share with people who don't believe. And remember, the point of defending our faith isn't to make us "right", its to lead people to believe that God exists. And once they believe that God exists, we can point them to Jesus, the Savior of our souls. Its all about Jesus and salvation.
FAITH AND SCIENCE
It seems that in the mind set of the world today, faith and science are at odds with each other. Stereotypically (but not in actual truth), Science is for the intellectual and faith is for the hopeful dreamer. But if scientists really want truth, and the church really wants truth, they are not really against each other- they want the same thing. The problem is when someone brings their own agenda and tries to make either science or religion fit.
But what if we set all that aside and just look at the evidence- a pure pursuit of Truth... the very definition of science= a search for a cause. And what we will see is that the science actually proves the existence of God.
A few quotes:
Galileo: "Science tells you how the heavens go, and the Bible tells you how to go to heaven."
Albert Einstein: "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind."
Allan Sandago: (A one time atheist and called the greatest observational cosmologist in the world): "It was science that drove me to the conclusion that the world is much more complicated than can be explained by science... It was only through the supernatural that I can understand the mystery of existence."
If we exist.. then WHY and HOW? If there were no God, then why is there something instead of nothing?
There are only two possibilities for anything that exists:
1. Either it has always existed and therefore has no cause.
2. Or, it had a beginning and was caused by something or someone else. It cannot be self-caused.
The Bible says, "It is He who made the earth by His power, who established the world by His wisdom, and by His understanding He has stretched out the heavens" (Her 10:12). But what does Science say?
FIRST PROOF: COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
Cosmological comes from the Greek word 'cosmos' which means 'world' or 'universe'.
The Cosmological Argument proves that the Universe had a beginning. It goes like this, everything that had a beginning had a cause. The Universe had a beginning. Therefore, the universe HAD to have a cause (i.e. a Creator). If the Universe had a beginning, it had to have a beginner (someone who caused it). This is called the LAW OF CASUALITY. Without it, science itself is impossible because science is a search for causes.
Until around 1916 the time of Albert Einstein, atheists could comfort themselves with the belief that the universe was eternal (meaning that it had always existed) and so it did not need a cause. But since then, the scientific evidence has overwhelmingly proved that the universe had a beginning. Einstein was bummed when he began to realize where his calculations were going of his Theory of General Relativity. Until then, Einstein believed that the universe was eternal, but now the evidence pointed to a definite beginning to all time, space and matter.
General Relativity predicted an expanding universe- moving outward from a single point. Meaning it STARTED at some point.
In 1927, Astronomer Edwin Hubble looking through a 100 inch telescope confirmed that the universe was expanding. He discovered what we call the "red shift" in light from every galaxy- meaning it is moving away from us. In other words, the universe is expanding from a single point in the distant point.
BUT GOD HAD ALREADY SAID THIS IN THE BOOK OF ISAIAH: "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, who stretches out the heavens like a curtain and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in" (Isaiah 40:22). By the way, in case you missed it, God says here that the earth is ROUND... long before explorers "discovered" the world is round, God already told us that. How did God know? Because He created it.
Another proof for the beginning of the universe...
The Second Law of Thermodynamic (a scientific law) proves that the earth had a set beginning. To simplify this law, it says, the universe is running out of usable energy (like a running car, it will ultimately run out of gas).
(The 1st Law shows that the universe only has finite [set amount] of usable energy,… the 2nd Law shows its running out).
So, if there is only so much energy and it will eventually run out, then the universe had to have a beginning (with that original amount of energy). If it had always existed, that limited amount of energy would have run out by now.
Also, within the Second Law of Thermodynamics is the Law of Entropy= which simply means nature brings things from ORDER TO DISORDER... that is, with time, things fall apart. So, if the universe is becoming less ordered, then where did the original order come from? If natural causes couldn't have caused it-… who caused it? It HAD to have a Creator.
OTHER SCIENTIFIC PROOFS
The Radiation Echo: In 1965, two scientists, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered radiation waves that confirm the earth burst suddenly into existence. Penzias' Quote: "The best data we have is exactly what I would have predicted had I nothing to go on but the first 5 books of Moses, the Psalms, and the Bible as a whole."
PHILOSOPHICAL LINE OF EVIDENCE FOR THE BEGINNING
1. An infinite number of days has no end
2. But today is the end of history
3. Therefore, there were not an infinite number of days before today
*THE KEY= if there was a beginning there must be a beginning (an outsider cause-… God). This will always be the fundamental problem for anyone who denies the existence of God. If there is no God, then why is there something instead of nothing?
Atheists have tried to explain it away by saying things like, "Rocks crashed together...or gases did this..… or dust partials did that...". BUT, they can never explain WHO made the first rocks, gases, or dust.
To sum up this loooooonnnngggg post:
The Cosmological Argument: The Universe had a beginning, and someone greater than the universe HAD to cause all of this. This is scientific... this helps to support the existence of God. In the next post... I'll continue the scientific proofs for the existence of God.
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Psssstttttt.....
Did you know God sent His Son to die on the cross for your sins?
Did you know that you have been set free from your sin?
Did you know God knows every little thing about you and loves you anyway?
Did you know that have freedom from the things of this world?
Did you know that everything on this earth will pass away, but the Word of God stands forever?
Beauty fades...
You can't take it with you when you go...
He who dies with the most toys... still dies...
This week, through the strength of Christ, find freedom from the things and ideals of this world. Be scandously free. Say no. Find your sufficiency in Christ.
Go ahead... I dare you!
Did you know that you have been set free from your sin?
Did you know God knows every little thing about you and loves you anyway?
Did you know that have freedom from the things of this world?
Did you know that everything on this earth will pass away, but the Word of God stands forever?
Beauty fades...
You can't take it with you when you go...
He who dies with the most toys... still dies...
This week, through the strength of Christ, find freedom from the things and ideals of this world. Be scandously free. Say no. Find your sufficiency in Christ.
Go ahead... I dare you!
Thursday, September 07, 2006
My New Favorite Hobby
I am FOREVER finding things I LOVE TO DO! To unwind, I need to do something creative. And I get REALLY excited about something and spend all my time doing that... until I find something NEW! Ok, so the latest thing I found was digital scrapbooking. So fun!!! I know its been around a while... but, well... my last computer was built in the 80's so I wasn't doing much more than a Word document on that sucker! But here is one of things I made for my mom and Jeni...
***I have had a request to tell everyone that I pasted our faces into the bodies of these three women... my mom isn't taller than either of us- so if you didn't know, but you knew it looked a little off... that's why!***
Monday, September 04, 2006
Stay Out of the Cookies Jeni!
I don't think I've told everyone about my new roommate. Oddly enough, his name is Jeni. He's pretty cool... doesn't take up a lot of space. But he's kind of a mooch. Here he is sneaking some cookie bits... caught in the action.
***For those of you that think I've lost my mind since the real Jeni is gone... this is pretty much the kind of stuff that is in my mind normally.... scary, huh?*****
Jeni in the kitchen:
Self portrait of us at a waterfall. Ok, now you can be scared... I'm a little scared of myself right now!!! :) Actually, I am just learning (the self taught way) how to use Photoshop so I love it when I learn something new. The latest thing I learned was how to cut something out from the original background and put it somewhere else.... like... this:
You'd never know he wasn't really sitting on my shoulder, huh? Hahaha... I'm still learning! :)
***For those of you that think I've lost my mind since the real Jeni is gone... this is pretty much the kind of stuff that is in my mind normally.... scary, huh?*****
Jeni in the kitchen:
Self portrait of us at a waterfall. Ok, now you can be scared... I'm a little scared of myself right now!!! :) Actually, I am just learning (the self taught way) how to use Photoshop so I love it when I learn something new. The latest thing I learned was how to cut something out from the original background and put it somewhere else.... like... this:
You'd never know he wasn't really sitting on my shoulder, huh? Hahaha... I'm still learning! :)
Sunday, September 03, 2006
Welcome to the Jungle
or farm... or petting zoo..... I know I've mentioned all the little critters that live around us. it ranges from armies of ants, to centipedes (only that one last year)... then we have the infamous barking dogs, roosters that crow at sun-up, retarded roosters that crow at three a.m. (i'm sure its sun-up somewhere in the world, maybe he used to live in california). but in our new apartment (i'm still saying 'our' and 'us' as if jeni will be back any day now! so sad), we have chickens as neighbors! ok, the chickens belong to our neighbors, but they're cute. one of them is named grandma. the other day i heard a lot of commotion under my window and when i looked out, i saw that the neighborhood just grew!
jeni, its true, grandmas can have babies! hahaha... that's an inside joke i'll explain one day. maybe i'll do it now. a couple of years ago, my mother claimed that she knew a 65 year old pregnant woman. i guess she's a teacher and i know some of you out there are lusd employees. so let me know if it is actually true and you know this woman, i'll owe my mom some flowers and an apology. otherwise, i'm sticking to my original opinion that its just the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard! :) this is the only grandma having babies...
Apologetics: Part 3
(continued from Apologetics: Part 2)
I have been listened to a well known apologist through his podcasts lately. His name is Ravi Zacharias and his website is http://www.rzim.org. He is amazingly brilliant, but also humble and gentle. But at the beginning of one of his podcasts, the annoucer says this: "When we send missionaries out to foreign countries, we train them so that they understand the culture they will be immersed in. The understand the midset of the people they will be ministering to. But most of us do not have that same knowledge in our own country." I mentioned in Part 1 that a lot of us (me included until recently) don't actually know what other people are thinking. And truthfully, we don't really care. But, its no wonder that we get stuck when we try to witness to someone- we've never heard their worldview before and it can startle us into silence.
One concept that is rampant is that there is no absolute truth. What is true for one person might be true for another. It defies logic, really, because the statement itself is a contradiction (they are saying there is no absolute truth, but aren't they asserting a 'truth' in saying that?)
The second night in our series, the pastor spent a night discussing truth and knowledge. A large part of apologetics is critical thinking, but read this verse and focus on the mind part: "You shall love the Lord you God with all you heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind" Matt 22:38. Yes, our minds. So, put your thinking cap on... here we go...
Tonight's question is: "Is there such thing as absolute truth and can it be known?"
This is where you can start with the Atheist, Agnostic, or a skeptic who says: "There is no such thing as absolute truth, everything is relative" or "There is no way for us to know the truth." If someone doesn't believe truth exists, or that it can't be known, they are not going to listen if you tell them Jesus is truth. So we begin... that there is absolute truth (i.s. God)... and that we can know this truth.
The opposite of absolute truth is relativism. Relativism says there is no such thing as absolute truth, everything is relative. It makes statements like, "That's your truth, but not my truth." Christians run into a big problem with this because the Bible makes tons of exclusive, absolute truth claims. Jesus says, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me" John 14:6.
If there is no such thing as absolute truth, and if all roads lead to heaven... then not only is our Bible wrong and our fait in vain, but God is also cruel and evil because He allowed Jesus to suffer on the cross when there couldhave been another way to. Our faith completely resrs on the fact that there is absolute truth.
But our world is trying to be politcally correct, and the word of the day is tolerance. To believe in absolute truth on an American college campus today is Neanderthal, outdated, close-minded, intolerant. To say there is a right and wrong, especially in regards to morality is considered fundamentalism and is treating with disdain. If you say abortion, homosexuality, premarital sex are wrong, and that Jesus is the only way to Heaven, you are seen as intolerant.
If you stand for truth in regard to morality or God, you are seen as close-minded. Yet, don't we demand truth in every other facet of life? Don't we expect truth in our friendships, family, with our spouses, at the doctors, the bank, the courts, road signs, medicine bottles. We demand truth for almost every facet of life that affects our moeny, relationships, safety or health. So why does the world demand truth and want truth in everything except when it's about God? In which of these other areas would someone say, "That's true for you, but not for me." What if you knew you had 200 dollars in the bank and the bank says you have five. And you say, "I KNOW I have that money." And they say, "That might be true for you, but not for me." It just isn't logical.
So when you run into someone who doesn't believe in absolute truth? What can you say to them? Show them that these are self-defeating claims= that they don't make sense. For example:
"There is no such thing as truth." Is that true? (by making this statement, they are claiming something to be true)
"There are no absolutes!" Are you absolutely sure?
"That may be true for you, but not for me". Is that TRUE just for you or is it true for everyone? The statement fails to meet its own standard.
So... now that we have established that there is such a things as turth, someone might ask, "Can't all religions be true?"
That is where the law of non-contradiction comes in. If Christianity says that Jesus died on the cross, and rose three days later, (1 Cor 15:1-8)... while the Qur'an says that Jesus never died on the cross (Sura 4:157), they both can't be right!
There are more contradictions betweens religions that there are similiarities. PLUS.. several make EXCLUSIVE CLAIMS (like they way someone can get saved), and each one claims that their's is the only way... Simply put, if all these religions contradict each other, only one can be true, and the rest must be a lie.
But what about Tolerance? Our culture today has become confused about tolerance. It no longer means just to put up with somthing you believe to be false (which is an actual definition of tolerance), it NOW means that you are supposed to accept every belief as true or OK. WRONG! Tolerance isn't about whether I agree with your beliefs or not, but rather my attitudes and actions towards those of a different faith.
So, back to truth. Now that there is truth, people might ask, "Can it actually be known?" The goal is to show that TRUTH (i.e. God) can be known. This is where you can start with an Atheist or Agnostic, because what good is it to quote Scripture if the person doesn't believe that God exists?
Much of what can stumble people are the things they don't know, or can't understand about God. I have a friend who is in this category. Because he can't understand everything, or would do things differently, he cannot bring himself to believe in God. So they let what they DON'T know, understand or comprehend keep them from faith in Christ. But God cannot be completely understood "Oh the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! For who has known the mind of God" Rom 11:33-34. But the Christian believer comes to faith because of what they DO know about God, allowing some things to remain unknown.
One of the most referred to events in the Bible (God continually reminding Israel) is their deliverance from Egypr and the parting of the Red Sea. Particularily, reminding His people this when they needed to trust Him for something; when He was asking them to walk by faith. God's point is always "I've given you enough evidence and reason to trust me through what you do know."
So you can ask someone, "Will you allow what you can know about God to produce faith, or will you let what you don't know keep you from faith? Every world view and belief requires faith... even the world view that says there is no God! It's all about the evidence.
Practically thinking about knowledge, here are a series of questions to help break down that barrier of knowledge about God. You can ask these:
Do you know everything in the world? Do you have all knowledge? (The obvious answer is no.)
Ok, do you know half of everything in the world? (Doubtful)
But, let's assume someone DOES know half of all knowledge in the world... is it possible that God exists in the half you don't know?
The bottom line is truth exists independent of anyone's knowledge of it. For example, gravity existed before Newton discovered it. If you just met someone who is 30 years old, that means for 30 years, that person lived without your knowledge of it. That person lived outside of your knowledge. But, did he exist? Yes! And how do we know? Proof! Evidence! We can go back and find all of the things that prove his existence... the same thing is with God. God exists whether people believe Him to. When we talk with people, we are helping break down those barriers that are keeping them from discovering the Truth... that Jesus came to save them from their sins and to set them free!
I have been listened to a well known apologist through his podcasts lately. His name is Ravi Zacharias and his website is http://www.rzim.org. He is amazingly brilliant, but also humble and gentle. But at the beginning of one of his podcasts, the annoucer says this: "When we send missionaries out to foreign countries, we train them so that they understand the culture they will be immersed in. The understand the midset of the people they will be ministering to. But most of us do not have that same knowledge in our own country." I mentioned in Part 1 that a lot of us (me included until recently) don't actually know what other people are thinking. And truthfully, we don't really care. But, its no wonder that we get stuck when we try to witness to someone- we've never heard their worldview before and it can startle us into silence.
One concept that is rampant is that there is no absolute truth. What is true for one person might be true for another. It defies logic, really, because the statement itself is a contradiction (they are saying there is no absolute truth, but aren't they asserting a 'truth' in saying that?)
The second night in our series, the pastor spent a night discussing truth and knowledge. A large part of apologetics is critical thinking, but read this verse and focus on the mind part: "You shall love the Lord you God with all you heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind" Matt 22:38. Yes, our minds. So, put your thinking cap on... here we go...
Tonight's question is: "Is there such thing as absolute truth and can it be known?"
This is where you can start with the Atheist, Agnostic, or a skeptic who says: "There is no such thing as absolute truth, everything is relative" or "There is no way for us to know the truth." If someone doesn't believe truth exists, or that it can't be known, they are not going to listen if you tell them Jesus is truth. So we begin... that there is absolute truth (i.s. God)... and that we can know this truth.
The opposite of absolute truth is relativism. Relativism says there is no such thing as absolute truth, everything is relative. It makes statements like, "That's your truth, but not my truth." Christians run into a big problem with this because the Bible makes tons of exclusive, absolute truth claims. Jesus says, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me" John 14:6.
If there is no such thing as absolute truth, and if all roads lead to heaven... then not only is our Bible wrong and our fait in vain, but God is also cruel and evil because He allowed Jesus to suffer on the cross when there couldhave been another way to. Our faith completely resrs on the fact that there is absolute truth.
But our world is trying to be politcally correct, and the word of the day is tolerance. To believe in absolute truth on an American college campus today is Neanderthal, outdated, close-minded, intolerant. To say there is a right and wrong, especially in regards to morality is considered fundamentalism and is treating with disdain. If you say abortion, homosexuality, premarital sex are wrong, and that Jesus is the only way to Heaven, you are seen as intolerant.
If you stand for truth in regard to morality or God, you are seen as close-minded. Yet, don't we demand truth in every other facet of life? Don't we expect truth in our friendships, family, with our spouses, at the doctors, the bank, the courts, road signs, medicine bottles. We demand truth for almost every facet of life that affects our moeny, relationships, safety or health. So why does the world demand truth and want truth in everything except when it's about God? In which of these other areas would someone say, "That's true for you, but not for me." What if you knew you had 200 dollars in the bank and the bank says you have five. And you say, "I KNOW I have that money." And they say, "That might be true for you, but not for me." It just isn't logical.
So when you run into someone who doesn't believe in absolute truth? What can you say to them? Show them that these are self-defeating claims= that they don't make sense. For example:
"There is no such thing as truth." Is that true? (by making this statement, they are claiming something to be true)
"There are no absolutes!" Are you absolutely sure?
"That may be true for you, but not for me". Is that TRUE just for you or is it true for everyone? The statement fails to meet its own standard.
So... now that we have established that there is such a things as turth, someone might ask, "Can't all religions be true?"
That is where the law of non-contradiction comes in. If Christianity says that Jesus died on the cross, and rose three days later, (1 Cor 15:1-8)... while the Qur'an says that Jesus never died on the cross (Sura 4:157), they both can't be right!
There are more contradictions betweens religions that there are similiarities. PLUS.. several make EXCLUSIVE CLAIMS (like they way someone can get saved), and each one claims that their's is the only way... Simply put, if all these religions contradict each other, only one can be true, and the rest must be a lie.
But what about Tolerance? Our culture today has become confused about tolerance. It no longer means just to put up with somthing you believe to be false (which is an actual definition of tolerance), it NOW means that you are supposed to accept every belief as true or OK. WRONG! Tolerance isn't about whether I agree with your beliefs or not, but rather my attitudes and actions towards those of a different faith.
So, back to truth. Now that there is truth, people might ask, "Can it actually be known?" The goal is to show that TRUTH (i.e. God) can be known. This is where you can start with an Atheist or Agnostic, because what good is it to quote Scripture if the person doesn't believe that God exists?
Much of what can stumble people are the things they don't know, or can't understand about God. I have a friend who is in this category. Because he can't understand everything, or would do things differently, he cannot bring himself to believe in God. So they let what they DON'T know, understand or comprehend keep them from faith in Christ. But God cannot be completely understood "Oh the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! For who has known the mind of God" Rom 11:33-34. But the Christian believer comes to faith because of what they DO know about God, allowing some things to remain unknown.
One of the most referred to events in the Bible (God continually reminding Israel) is their deliverance from Egypr and the parting of the Red Sea. Particularily, reminding His people this when they needed to trust Him for something; when He was asking them to walk by faith. God's point is always "I've given you enough evidence and reason to trust me through what you do know."
So you can ask someone, "Will you allow what you can know about God to produce faith, or will you let what you don't know keep you from faith? Every world view and belief requires faith... even the world view that says there is no God! It's all about the evidence.
Practically thinking about knowledge, here are a series of questions to help break down that barrier of knowledge about God. You can ask these:
Do you know everything in the world? Do you have all knowledge? (The obvious answer is no.)
Ok, do you know half of everything in the world? (Doubtful)
But, let's assume someone DOES know half of all knowledge in the world... is it possible that God exists in the half you don't know?
The bottom line is truth exists independent of anyone's knowledge of it. For example, gravity existed before Newton discovered it. If you just met someone who is 30 years old, that means for 30 years, that person lived without your knowledge of it. That person lived outside of your knowledge. But, did he exist? Yes! And how do we know? Proof! Evidence! We can go back and find all of the things that prove his existence... the same thing is with God. God exists whether people believe Him to. When we talk with people, we are helping break down those barriers that are keeping them from discovering the Truth... that Jesus came to save them from their sins and to set them free!
Apologetics: Part 2
(continued from Apologetics: Part 1)
Ok, so I explained a little about what Apologetics is. I wanted to type up the rest of the notes from the first night, which was an introduction.
TWO MAIN GOALS
There are two main goals of learning apologetics.
The first is that we would know for ourselves what we believe and so we don't have a blind faith. And like I mentioned in Part 1, the more confidence we have, the more likely we'll be to share with others. So the first goal is for our own foundation.
The second goal is to point others to the truth. I mentioned 1 Peter 3:15 "always being ready to make a defense to everyone who ask you to give an account for the hope that is in you...". And also, we are commanded to refute false ideas about God. "For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God" 2 Cor 10:4. And Jude 1:3, "Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints".
THE APOLOGIST (us)
Our pastor spent a few minutes making note of what our motivation and focus should be.
First, what is our motivation? Simple: to point people to Jesus. Our goal is not to win an argument or show how much we know. Knowledge itself isn't bad, but it does have the potential to make us prideful if it's not done in love. We are not trying to pick a fight or win an argument. We only want to point people to Jesus. What good is it if we win an argument and lose the person?
Also, we need to remember that the person we are sharing with is not our enemy. It's a spiritual battle. "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places" Eph 6:12
So we need to remember all the verses I've mentioned and speak with gentleness, reverence, wisdom, grace, speak the truth in love, not quarrelsome, be kind and patient.
Finally, read this verse in 2 Timothy 2:24 again: "The Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil having been held in captive by him to do his will." Looking at the section that says, "they may come to their sense and escape from the snare..." Apologetics is a tool to help people remove the snares, or the barriers that people place between themselves and Jesus.
The barriers might be worldview, cultural influences, etc. But Apologetics is reasoning with people from the evidence for the purpose of removing these barriers. We have been discussing a lot of the evidence in church, and I will be posting that later.
Lastly, its important to know that Apologetics has two limitations. Number one, it must be applied. If it never makes it out the door, it worthless. We need to care. And this is something I pray for myself every day for... to care enough to take the time to share.
And the second limitation is it must be from God. Apologetics cannot save anyone. It's only by God's spirit that anyone is saved. Apologetics is a great tool, and can remove those barriers, but only God can save. "Unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain who build it" Psalm 127:1.
Ok, here's something I saw today that brings the importance of knowing how to defend our faith to the forefront. I was in the laundrymat (yes, I have to go to the laundrymat... grrr) and I saw a huge poster posted on a bulletin board. It was talking about getting Bush out of office and as I read everything on it, I honestly got a chill down my spine. But, friends and family, we need to understand that the world is being set up to view us, Christians, as their enemy. It is happening. This is not an attack on just Bush as president, but on Christians and everything we stand for. It is not a politcal issue, it is a spiritual one. We need to be in prayer. We need to be ready to give a defense of our faith.
Visit their website http://www.worldcantwait.org
Here are just a few of the insane comments:
YOUR GOVERNMENT is moving each day closer to a theocracy, where a narrow and hateful brand of Christian fundamentalism will rule.
YOUR GOVERNMENT suppresses the science that doesn't fit its religious, political and economic agenda, forcing present and future generations to pay a terrible price.
YOUR GOVERNMENT is moving to deny women here, and all over the world, the right to birth control and abortion.
YOUR GOVERNMENT enforces a culture of greed, bigotry, intolerance and ignorance.
Ok, so I explained a little about what Apologetics is. I wanted to type up the rest of the notes from the first night, which was an introduction.
TWO MAIN GOALS
There are two main goals of learning apologetics.
The first is that we would know for ourselves what we believe and so we don't have a blind faith. And like I mentioned in Part 1, the more confidence we have, the more likely we'll be to share with others. So the first goal is for our own foundation.
The second goal is to point others to the truth. I mentioned 1 Peter 3:15 "always being ready to make a defense to everyone who ask you to give an account for the hope that is in you...". And also, we are commanded to refute false ideas about God. "For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God" 2 Cor 10:4. And Jude 1:3, "Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints".
THE APOLOGIST (us)
Our pastor spent a few minutes making note of what our motivation and focus should be.
First, what is our motivation? Simple: to point people to Jesus. Our goal is not to win an argument or show how much we know. Knowledge itself isn't bad, but it does have the potential to make us prideful if it's not done in love. We are not trying to pick a fight or win an argument. We only want to point people to Jesus. What good is it if we win an argument and lose the person?
Also, we need to remember that the person we are sharing with is not our enemy. It's a spiritual battle. "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places" Eph 6:12
So we need to remember all the verses I've mentioned and speak with gentleness, reverence, wisdom, grace, speak the truth in love, not quarrelsome, be kind and patient.
Finally, read this verse in 2 Timothy 2:24 again: "The Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil having been held in captive by him to do his will." Looking at the section that says, "they may come to their sense and escape from the snare..." Apologetics is a tool to help people remove the snares, or the barriers that people place between themselves and Jesus.
The barriers might be worldview, cultural influences, etc. But Apologetics is reasoning with people from the evidence for the purpose of removing these barriers. We have been discussing a lot of the evidence in church, and I will be posting that later.
Lastly, its important to know that Apologetics has two limitations. Number one, it must be applied. If it never makes it out the door, it worthless. We need to care. And this is something I pray for myself every day for... to care enough to take the time to share.
And the second limitation is it must be from God. Apologetics cannot save anyone. It's only by God's spirit that anyone is saved. Apologetics is a great tool, and can remove those barriers, but only God can save. "Unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain who build it" Psalm 127:1.
Ok, here's something I saw today that brings the importance of knowing how to defend our faith to the forefront. I was in the laundrymat (yes, I have to go to the laundrymat... grrr) and I saw a huge poster posted on a bulletin board. It was talking about getting Bush out of office and as I read everything on it, I honestly got a chill down my spine. But, friends and family, we need to understand that the world is being set up to view us, Christians, as their enemy. It is happening. This is not an attack on just Bush as president, but on Christians and everything we stand for. It is not a politcal issue, it is a spiritual one. We need to be in prayer. We need to be ready to give a defense of our faith.
Visit their website http://www.worldcantwait.org
Here are just a few of the insane comments:
YOUR GOVERNMENT is moving each day closer to a theocracy, where a narrow and hateful brand of Christian fundamentalism will rule.
YOUR GOVERNMENT suppresses the science that doesn't fit its religious, political and economic agenda, forcing present and future generations to pay a terrible price.
YOUR GOVERNMENT is moving to deny women here, and all over the world, the right to birth control and abortion.
YOUR GOVERNMENT enforces a culture of greed, bigotry, intolerance and ignorance.
Saturday, September 02, 2006
Apologetics: Part 1
This past Spring Break, I had a really disturbing incident happen to me. While I was flying to California (and then to Africa), I sat next to a lady on the plane who had a messed up life. She was extremely wealthy, dressed to the nines, hair, make-up were perfect, her clothes were designer everything. We didn't talk much at first, but as the flight went on, she began to tell me her life story. Without going into all the details, she was miserable. She had a terrible marriage (her husband is a drug user and cheats on her), a 15 year old daughter that was out of control and on drugs, and three years ago, her two year old son died by choking on something in the grocery store. At the end of her tale, she said, "There is no God. I don't know much, but I know that much is true." I hadn't spoken to her about God at all up to this point and I, of course, was praying for an open door. And then... the door slammed open. I don't remember my exact words, but I told her I was sorry for her loss and everything she's going through. And then I said, "And I know you are in a lot of pain and bad things have happened, but I do know there is a God. And I know that He loves you very much." Her response was this, "How do you know there's a God? How? Because you believe the Bible? I don't believe in the Bible? Because you 'feel' he's true? That doesn't cut it for me." To be honest, I didn't know what else to say. Here I was, on my way to Africa on a missions trip and I could not tell this lady about the love and peace and validity of my Savior. I had never been in that situation and come up so empty and it hit me hard.
In 1 Peter 3:15, the Bible says, "sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you...". I failed miserably at giving a defense of my faith. And I couldn't even explain to her why I have the hope I have. I was shaken beyond belief by this. And I started praying that God would build me up in this area. I teach at a school that is 80% Mormon and honestly, I have always been scared that one of them would talk to me about their faith (wow, this is confession night, huh?). I know they are trained in what to say and it has intimidated me. Well, God is faithful, even when we are not, and our Saturday night Young Adults Bible has begun a series on Apologetics!
WHAT IS APOLOGETICS?
The word "Apologetics" comes from the Greek word "apologia" which means "a strong defense" (rather than to 'apologize' which is what it sounds like). The word "apologia" can be found in 1 Peter 3:15 "sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you...". This "making a defense" is 'apologia' and that is where the word apologetics comes from. In the church, studying apologetics is used to give a reasonable, rational answer, and a defense of our faith to doubters or unbelievers.
I am going to begin to post some notes from these teachings on my blog. Why? I think our world is sad, and like the lady on the plane, miserable. There is no hope. Morality and truth have been stripped away and most of us Christians don't even know the extent of it because 95% of our lives are lived around other Christians. We are now being told that we are intolerant and we are being bullied into silence. Any lifestyle in our world is accepted and celebrated except Christianity, and we are under heavy attack. It is so extreme, that last Saturday night, a woman actually interrupted our pastor three times to disagree with him. Her most vocal comment was, "You are spreading right-wing fundamentalist propaganda!" Sound familiar? She was not embarrassed at all to speak out against us- in our own service! Would we feel the same freedom in their environment? I doubt it.
In Matthew 16, Jesus asks Peter, "Who do you say I am?" And after Peter responds, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God", Jesus says, "Blessed are you... I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hades shall not prevail over it." Matt 16:16-19. Jesus is not building His church on Peter, but upon the confession of Christ. And then He goes on to say, "the gates of Hades shall not prevail." Gates are a defensive measure. In battle, you do not charge with gates. They are used to protect something. In this verse, we see that we should be on the offensive, and that Hell should be on the defensive. But I think we would all agree that the tides have turned. ****Having said that, we should be on the offensive, but I want to say that I don't mean we should charge out and run everyone over with the Gospel. It MUST be delivered in LOVE, with PATIENCE and GENTLENSS and it must be SPIRIT-LED. "The Lord's bond-serveant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will" 2 Tim 2:24-26. More on that later....
But Apologetics is a way to explore what we believe and why we believe it. We do not have a blind faith. The more confidence we have in what we believe, the more likely we are to let it affect our lives. And when it affects our lives, hopefully the result is people coming to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. Apologetics is one tool that can help us share His love.
I am going to end this particular post because it is waaaaaaayy longer than I wanted it to be. But I am going to leave off on this note. I am extremely passionate and so excited about this (as if you can't tell!). WHY? I see the effects of evil everyday in my classroom. There are more and more foster kids. More and more children alcoholics (I have a 15 year old student who is a raging alcoholic)... there are drugs, there is sex, there is hurt, and cycles of abuse and unspeakable pain. We have the only hope that will help anyone in this world. And we need to step out in faith and in love and begin to take responsibility for sharing "the reason for our hope." We cannot let fear or ignorance stand in our way.
Earlier today, I was looking at a photography site and I saw a quote from one of the photographers that exemplifies our culture today. It said, "I know not if I sink or swim". The world has thrown out truth and morals and people know not if they are sinking or swimming. We have the knowledge that can set them free. So that not only will they know if they are living or dying, but they will know why.
In 1 Peter 3:15, the Bible says, "sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you...". I failed miserably at giving a defense of my faith. And I couldn't even explain to her why I have the hope I have. I was shaken beyond belief by this. And I started praying that God would build me up in this area. I teach at a school that is 80% Mormon and honestly, I have always been scared that one of them would talk to me about their faith (wow, this is confession night, huh?). I know they are trained in what to say and it has intimidated me. Well, God is faithful, even when we are not, and our Saturday night Young Adults Bible has begun a series on Apologetics!
WHAT IS APOLOGETICS?
The word "Apologetics" comes from the Greek word "apologia" which means "a strong defense" (rather than to 'apologize' which is what it sounds like). The word "apologia" can be found in 1 Peter 3:15 "sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you...". This "making a defense" is 'apologia' and that is where the word apologetics comes from. In the church, studying apologetics is used to give a reasonable, rational answer, and a defense of our faith to doubters or unbelievers.
I am going to begin to post some notes from these teachings on my blog. Why? I think our world is sad, and like the lady on the plane, miserable. There is no hope. Morality and truth have been stripped away and most of us Christians don't even know the extent of it because 95% of our lives are lived around other Christians. We are now being told that we are intolerant and we are being bullied into silence. Any lifestyle in our world is accepted and celebrated except Christianity, and we are under heavy attack. It is so extreme, that last Saturday night, a woman actually interrupted our pastor three times to disagree with him. Her most vocal comment was, "You are spreading right-wing fundamentalist propaganda!" Sound familiar? She was not embarrassed at all to speak out against us- in our own service! Would we feel the same freedom in their environment? I doubt it.
In Matthew 16, Jesus asks Peter, "Who do you say I am?" And after Peter responds, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God", Jesus says, "Blessed are you... I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hades shall not prevail over it." Matt 16:16-19. Jesus is not building His church on Peter, but upon the confession of Christ. And then He goes on to say, "the gates of Hades shall not prevail." Gates are a defensive measure. In battle, you do not charge with gates. They are used to protect something. In this verse, we see that we should be on the offensive, and that Hell should be on the defensive. But I think we would all agree that the tides have turned. ****Having said that, we should be on the offensive, but I want to say that I don't mean we should charge out and run everyone over with the Gospel. It MUST be delivered in LOVE, with PATIENCE and GENTLENSS and it must be SPIRIT-LED. "The Lord's bond-serveant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will" 2 Tim 2:24-26. More on that later....
But Apologetics is a way to explore what we believe and why we believe it. We do not have a blind faith. The more confidence we have in what we believe, the more likely we are to let it affect our lives. And when it affects our lives, hopefully the result is people coming to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. Apologetics is one tool that can help us share His love.
I am going to end this particular post because it is waaaaaaayy longer than I wanted it to be. But I am going to leave off on this note. I am extremely passionate and so excited about this (as if you can't tell!). WHY? I see the effects of evil everyday in my classroom. There are more and more foster kids. More and more children alcoholics (I have a 15 year old student who is a raging alcoholic)... there are drugs, there is sex, there is hurt, and cycles of abuse and unspeakable pain. We have the only hope that will help anyone in this world. And we need to step out in faith and in love and begin to take responsibility for sharing "the reason for our hope." We cannot let fear or ignorance stand in our way.
Earlier today, I was looking at a photography site and I saw a quote from one of the photographers that exemplifies our culture today. It said, "I know not if I sink or swim". The world has thrown out truth and morals and people know not if they are sinking or swimming. We have the knowledge that can set them free. So that not only will they know if they are living or dying, but they will know why.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
