New Blog

I have started a new blog called Foolish Things. It is a continuation of this blog, but with a different attitude. Check it out! There are a couple new posts and a few recycled posts from this blog, but I hope to be more reliable in posting on a more regular basis. Thanks!

A Reminder for Christians: Debating with an Atheist/Evolutionist

Through recent experience, I have come to the conclusion that debating with and Atheist/Evolutionist over origins is useless in converting the Atheist/Evolutionist from their way of thinking. For every argument, they will have a counter-argument that is better in their own eyes. Also, if the debate is in a forum where other Atheist/Evolutionists have the ability to join in the debate, they will and they will feed off of each other. If you are debating solo, it becomes impossible to address every one of their arguments before they send another wave. They will accuse you of Straw Man arguments, Red Herrings, and other logical fallacies (which in my case was incorrect), while using those same logical fallacies and more in their own arguments.

To clarify, I am not saying these debates should not happen or that they are useless, because they do get people on the fence thinking. But don't go into it thinking that you will be able to change an Atheist/Evolutionist's way of thinking with debate, or that to witness to them you must overcome those beliefs. Through this experience, I have been reminded that the reason Atheist/Evolutionists believe what they believe is not because of the science, but because of the condition of their heart. They don't want to face the God of the Bible on Judgement Day. They don't want to live a life accountable to God. The best way to change an Atheist/Evolutionist's thinking is not through science, but through their conscience. Also, remember that we don't do the converting; God does.

Why Evolution is NOT Scientific

The Scientific Method is as follows:

1. Define the question
2. Observe
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that help in refining or discrediting hypothesis
   
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

If you cannot perform all the steps, yet you still come up with results, you are NOT practicing science. In evolution (a single celled organism being the common ancestor for all life), steps 2, 4-6, as well as 8, cannot be taken. Let me explain:

Step 1: define the question. How did such a wide variety of life forms come to be, here on Earth?
Step 2: observe...

Here is our first problem. How do we observe evolution, the transition of one kind of animal to another. The answer is we DON'T. Ignoring any biases I have regarding evolution, there is not a single example today I, or anyone else, can observe. Could it happen in the future (no), or have happened in the past (no, again)? Maybe (definitely not), but to perform the scientific method on it, it would have to be happening in the present, somewhere observable.

Step 3: form hypothesis. Well anyone can form a hypothesis, but to be part of the scientific method, it must be based on observation.
Step 4: perform experiment and collect data. There is no experiment to perform, or data to collect.
Step 5: analyze data. Once again, there is no data to analyze.
Step 6: interpret data and refine hypothesis to fit with data. There is no data to interpret, therefore no way to use data to refine hypothesis.
Step 7: publish results. Can't publish results, because I didn't find anything.
Step 8: retest. Can't retest, because there wasn't a test to begin with.

As you can see, evolutionists do NOT follow the scientific method. Instead of performing step 2: observation, they use fossils of dead organisms, and try to create a "tree of life" to explain their hypothesis. Again, these are DEAD organisms, they are NOT evolving, therefore, they cannot be used to support evolution.

Basically, the method used to support evolution is as follows.
Step 1: come up with an idea of how all living things are descendants of a common ancestor.
Step 2: find fossils that fit into your idea, while ignoring fossils that don't.
Step 3: Publish your idea as a hypothesis (even though it can't be considered a hypothesis).
Step 4: Have other evolutionists take fossils that you couldn't fit into your "tree of life" and attempt to create a new "tree of life" that they will fit into.

In conclusion, evolution is NOT science. To be fair, creationism isn't science either. Creationists can't use the scientific method to show that God created everything, but they can use the scientific method to support creation, just like evolutionists can use the scientific method to try to support evolution. However, science cannot be used to explain the origin of life, or the origin of the Universe. To do so, would require the ability to observe creation in the first place and the ability recreate creation in a controlled environment. And we all know that is not possible.

P.S. I realize that I didn't talk about Darwin's finches or other similar observations. However, those are not observations of evolution in action, they are observations of variation within a created kind. They are still finches and they can still reproduce with other finches. After the drought ended in the Galapagos Islands, the finch beaks went back to how they were pre-drought. It is nothing more than natural selection, which unlike evolution, IS scientific.

Why Karma is Illogical

It seems you can't watch a TV show or go through a day without hearing someone mentioning karma. It seems like a nice idea; you do good things and good things happen to you. Or if you do bad things, bad things will happen to you. To most people, it sounds like a good idea, perfectly compatible with Christianity and the Bible, but is it?

Absolutely not! Also, the idea of karma does not even make sense logically. So if good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people, then we can all conclude that those Haitians must of been really, really bad, for such a devastating earthquake to ravage their country. Really? Is that the best explanation for someone who believes in karma. Why do rapists get away with community service as their only punishment, while innocent children die in an earthquake?

However, unlike karma, the Christian worldview can make sense of everything. Why do bad things happen to good people? Answer: No one is good. "And Jesus said to him, Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone." (Luke 18:19) The question should therefore be rephrased to ask, why do good things happen to bad people? This helps us understand why karma is not logical and why it does not fit in with a Biblical worldview.

If we all got what we deserved, we would all be in the pit of Hell, suffering eternally. And God would be just to do so. However, because God so loved the world, He gave His one and only Son to be a sacrifice. To die and face the punishment that we deserve. And then he rose from the grave. Whoever repents and puts his or her faith in Christ, shall not die, but will have everlasting life. Not because of anything we have done, but by Grace. Not of works, lest any man should boast. (Paraphrase of John 3:16 and Ephesians 2:8,9)

Pastor Steve

"I hope that God strikes Barack Obama with brain cancer so he can die like Ted Kennedy and I hope it happens today."

The above quote is from Pastor Steve Anderson of Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona, in a sermon entitled, "Why I Hate Barack Obama." I find this man and his followers disturbing, not only because of what he says, but because he claims to be a Christian.

"I'm gonna pray that he dies and goes to hell when I go to bed tonight. That's what I'm gonna pray."

No, I'm not going to say I like Obama, but I don't wish him death and damnation. Firstly, because, God wishes that all men might come to the knowing salvation of Him, and secondly, Joe Biden as president freaks me out even more than Obama. Christian's should pray that Obama repents of his sins and becomes a Christian, not that he dies and goes to hell.

"Look up the word hate. Look up the word abhor, the word loathe. You'll see there are a lot of people that God hates, and so we should hate. But see, I didn't write that, that's in the Bible."

Where? In Luke 6:27-29? "But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either." Hmmmmm... sounds a little different than what Pastor Steve is saying. Does God hate? Yes, he hates that which is evil and those who have violated His laws and do not repent. But he does not tell us to hate others. We can have righteous anger, but do not hate. Obama is a lost soul, the same as everyone else, including Pastor Steve. Pastor Steve should stop preaching his gospel of hate and actually become a Christian, because right now, he is just making Christians look like hypocrites.

I thought the Wii was supposed to be family friendly...

I have been under the impression that the Wii is more family friendly than the Xbox 360 or Play Station 3, but now I'm not so sure. I was recently surfing the internet when I came upon a couple of questionable games. The first game wasn't that big of surprise for me. It was Cursed Mountain, and basically teaches kids all about buddhism. Yay! It is a horror game or something designed specifically for the Wii. "Players will immerse themselves in the local Buddhist traditions and rituals" and is "designed to mimic the physical aspects of sacred prayer rituals, mantras, and gestures of Buddhism" Okay, it is rated M for mature, meaning that you have to be over 17 to buy the game, but realistically, 10 year old kids will be playing this game, learning how to be little buddhists.

The second game shocked me completely. It is a WiiWare game entitled Sexy Poker. WiiWare means that the game is downloaded off of the Wii's Wi-Fi network. It's basically strip poker with anime girls. The biggest complaint from people is that they only strip down to their underwear. I don't even know what to say about that game, but I do know that Nintendo isn't the family friendly company that they advertise themselves to be. At least not for any family that has Christian morals and values. In conclusion, parents have to supervise their childrens' video games even if they are on a Wii.

Michael Vick Returning to NFL

I don't understand the big deal about Michael Vick returning to the NFL. He was deep into dog fighting. Dogs got killed and maimed. He served jail time, but people think he shouldn't be allowed to return to football. Child molesters often get less jail time than he did, why doesn't anyone care about them? Hundreds of babies are getting murdered every day under the guise of woman's choice, yet no one in the media cares. Michael Jackson molests little boys, yet is basically worshiped after he overdoses and dies on medication. Something is wrong with our culture when dogs are valued over children. People need to wake up and give Michale Vick a break. Was it something that he should get punished for? Yes, but their are much worse things that are going unpunished.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses Perversion of Christianity

Just last month, two Jehovah’s Witnesses knocked on my door. I wasn’t there at the time and my wife not knowing who they were, answered the door. Once she realized who they were she worked on getting them to leave, but not before they gave her a couple of their magazines. When I came home from work she showed them to me. I told her not to throw them away so I could read them. Well, I finally got around to reading them, so I could see for myself how they have perverted Christianity. Several articles caught my eye. In the time I glanced through the magazines, I saw four main things that differed from Christianity: blood transfusions, war, the afterlife, and the Trinity.

Blood transfusions are not allowed in their religion. They support this with Bible verses calling for the people of Israel to not drink blood. Hmmm… blood injected into your body to keep you alive is the same as drinking blood in a pagan ritual… ok? I have no idea how any sensible person could translate those Bible verses in a way that makes them prohibit blood transfusions, but they did.

War is also prohibited by their cult. To support this, they basically use Jesus’ words saying to love your brother as yourself or love your enemies, which I agree with. You shouldn’t go to war with someone because they won’t convert. They then go on to say that Jehovah’s Witness is the only religion that did not participate in World War II. To that I say, “why are you proud about that?” Millions of Jews, gypsies and other innocent people were gassed and incinerated by the Germans, and you are proud that you didn’t try to stop them? That’s a good way to show love to all those Jews you allowed to be massacred. Wow… what an intellectual disconnect, once again. This is confusing now… so God changed his mind? He told Israel to go to war, but now it’s not okay? Even though you have an article in your magazine saying that God doesn’t change his mind. Intellectual disconnect.

Jehovah’s witnesses don’t believe in an afterlife. I know… I know… that kind of defeats the whole purpose of religion, but oh well. To support this view, they refer to God… I mean Jehovah… creating Adam out of dust and breathing the breath of life into him, which then gave him a living soul. Then when Adam sinned, his soul died, so there is no life apart from the body. This view goes against both the Old and New Testaments. I have not read the Jehovah’s Witnesses “special” version of the Bible, but they must have had to do some serious editing to get rid of all references of an afterlife. Such as Jesus saying he was going to his Father’s House to prepare a place for believers, or even John 3:16; “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

Last, but definitely not least, they do not believe in the Trinity. This was just mentioned in an article of how to know which religion was true. They made sure to point out that true Christianity has one God; therefore the Trinity does not exist. I’m not sure how they weaseled their way out of this one, since the Bible clearly states that there is one God, Jesus claims to be God, and the Holy Spirit is clearly God. Three separate persons, yet one God, the Trinity. To deny this fundamental foundation of Christianity, they must have had to edit those sections, too. As well as Genesis 1, where God refers to himself in plural form; “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.”

After reading their material and comparing it to what the original Bible says, Jehovah’s Witnesses are clearly not Christian. They are a cult, which leads people away from the Jesus Christ, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one can come to the Father but by him. Since they clearly do not have the proper view of Jesus, they do not have the proper Father either.

Image Versus Substance and its Affect on American Politics

As you turn off the TV after having just finished listening to a presidential debate, you reflect on what just happened. Who won the debate in your mind? Was it the young, energetic man, or the elderly prisoner of war, who can no longer lift his arms above his head? If you were like many Americans, you would say that the younger man won. But when asked why, you would have no valid answer. A major problem in our American culture is that too much emphasis is placed on the image of an individual, rather than their substance. Throughout this essay, I will show you the negative aspects of this cultural trend and attempt to convince you that this trend is bad for our country.

If you hadn’t already guessed, in the previous paragraph I am referring to the 2008 Presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain. Obama is African American, relatively young (especially when compared with his opponent) and brought many people the hope of change. McCain is white, a Vietnam War Vet and Prisoner of War, who can no longer raise his arms above his head due to war-time injuries and promises to fight corruption. Not only did their appearances vary greatly, but their views on government varied greatly as well. Obama is liberal and talked about hope and change without giving specifics on how he was going to accomplish his goals. McCain is conservative and talked of reform and ending government corruption. In debates, Obama gave fluent answers that raised crowds to their feet, cheering, yet he never answered the questions. McCain, on the other hand, didn’t mince words and got right to the point. He clearly answered the questions and received a smaller applause.

When comparing the two candidates by what they said, neglecting “how” they said it, McCain appeared to make the better leader. Yet, when the average person was asked who won the debates, they most likely would say, “Obama, because he is such a great speaker.” In reality, this person and many others didn’t actually listen to what was being said. They heard, but did not mentally process the information to make their decision. They let their feelings get in the way and voted for the image, rather than the substance. When a friend of mine was asked who he wanted to win the presidency, he said “Obama, because he is cool.”

This trend of image over substance did not start in politics, nor is it a new occurrence in politics. Going as far back to the presidential election between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, we can see where image began to trump substance in politics. Ever since the TV set was introduced into popular culture, the importance of image to the American people has increased dramatically. However, during this last election, the image over substance trend was taken to new heights. Presidential candidate Barack Obama was treated as a celebrity by the media; beginning the day he announced his candidacy for the Democratic nomination. Instead of focusing on the misdeeds and antics of Britney Spears, etc., the media quickly shifted its attention and began to follow Obama on his campaign tours. The networks began to have specials on the candidate’s life, family and his career. He became more than a presidential candidate; with the media’s help, he turned into a celebrity. Barrack Obama’s transformation from presidential candidate to celebrity played right into the American culture’s obsession with celebrities. Instead of watching E! News or another celebrity gossip show, millions of Americans began to follow their new favorite celebrity in the news. So why would this be bad for our country?

The reason the convergence of celebrity and politician is a bad thing for our country is unclear to many. Many believe it is a good idea to have a president who is popular with both the American people and those of foreign countries. In some instances this could be true, but a president should not be popular simply because he has been made into a celebrity. He should be popular for his accomplishments, not because he is the first African-American president. The American people have been “blinded” by their own obsession with celebrities. We vote for the image, not the man. Instead of looking at the issues and coming to a decision based on who would be a better leader for our country, we let our country and ourselves down by voting for the individual that looks good and makes history. Obama is an example of politicians who use “the tradecraft of entertainment to win office and stay there”(Anderson, 1998, para.4).

In conclusion, we have looked at the cultural trend that has put image over substance and have discovered that this practice is deeply rooted in our culture. With the introduction of the television, our culture has become obsessed with almost everything it feeds us. In recent years this obsession seems to be getting worse. We no longer simply favor those who have a more pleasing image; we practically worship those whose images please us. The types of people we obsess over has changed too. Idolizing movie stars and athletes has been a common practice for decades, but we have now moved on to idolizing politicians; not because they are worthy of our admiration, but because they and others have erected an image that dwarfs the actual substance of the individuals themselves. Image has trumped substance; we just want to be entertained. Gabler was right when he called America the “Republic of Entertainment” (Gabler, 1998, 22).

Refrences

Andersen, K. (1998, February 16). Entertainer-in-chief. The New Yorker Magazine. Retrieved March 10, 2009, from http://kurtandersen.com/journalism/nyker/nyker061698entertainer.html

Gabler, N. (1998). Life: The movie (22). New York: Vintage Books.

Why Does Everybody Hate Us?

Since 9/11, many things have changed. We have discovered that there are many countries that hate us. Many in the media have led us to believe that this hatred stems from their dislike of our leaders. However, on a closer examination, we realize that they hate the ideals and morals that our country was founded on. As Americans, we need to know the reasons why this hatred exists and what we should do about it. As a whole, we first realized the hatred toward our country on that fateful September morning.

The image of the burning Twin Towers is ever present in post-9/11 America. It is a solemn reminder of the atrocities committed against our country. Why did these people attack us? To answer this question we must first realize who attacked us. The men that hijacked four planes on September 11, 2001 were of Middle Eastern descent and all belonged to the Islamic religion. Their actions were not in conflict with their religion, as many claim. Their holy book, the Qur’an, specifically teaches followers to kill infidels, mainly Jews and Christians. So it only makes sense that they would want to attack a country founded on Judeo-Christian principles.

We now have a better understanding as to why Islamic countries hate us, but why do many European countries hate us? The question of why Europeans hate us is a perplexing one. Less than 70 years ago, the United States saved Europe from Hitler and his Nazis. That was then. Now, those same countries hate us and have forgotten the hundreds of thousands of U.S. soldiers who sacrificed their lives in World War II. During the last 50 years, Europe has experienced a rapid secularization. Religion is no longer important to a majority of Europeans. During this same time, the secularization of the United States has been slower. Even though we are not as religious as we once were, Europeans view our country as a place of intolerance and religious extremism because of our country’s Judeo-Christian roots. They see us in almost the same light as they see Muslim extremists.

Let us now examine what real tolerance is and why Islamic extremism is not the same as the religious “extremism” of many Americans. Many people think that being tolerant means that you can’t make a moral judgment on anyone’s beliefs or behavior and you cannot force your beliefs on someone else. However, by their own definition of tolerance, they are being intolerant by forcing their belief of tolerance on me. As Doug Marlette puts it, “no one is less tolerant than those demanding tolerance.” (Alfand and O’Brien 17) Real tolerance means that you can have differing views and you don’t have to kill someone because they don’t believe the same things you do. It is okay to say that someone else’s opinion or belief is wrong. Many Europeans now have the worldview of Postmodernism, which states that truth is relative. This means that what is true for you is not necessarily true for me. This makes no sense; if this statement is always true, then it is false. It is self-contradictory. You might be wondering what postmodernism and the new “tolerance” have to do with each other. Individuals who believe in postmodernism then create a new definition of tolerance. Tolerance, for postmodernists not only, means that their views cannot be criticized, but others must also embrace them. The Christian faith is not “tolerant” in their sense.

The Christian faith, or worldview, is at complete odds against the postmodern worldview. Where as postmodernists believe that truth is relative and can be different for each individual, the Christian worldview believes that truth is concrete and transcendental. The truth is the same for all universally. This view is not “tolerant.” Therefore, Americans who are viewed as mostly Christians by the majority of the world, are intolerant extremists and are put into the same boat as intolerant Muslim extremists who kill those who don’t believe the Islamic faith. Now that I have shared with you the reason that Europeans hate us, let me now show you the distinction between Christian “extremists” and Muslim extremists and whether or not Christians really are intolerant.

Muslim extremists follow their holy book and murder innocent nonbelievers in the name of Allah. Christian “extremists” follow their holy book, the Bible, and try to convert nonbelievers through reason. They do not, however, murder individuals who don’t convert. But are Christians tolerant in the true meaning? Yes, Christianity is the most tolerant belief system that exists. Islamic terrorists have killed thousands; mobs of Hindus have killed hundreds; atheistic regimes have killed millions. Even when you turn on our biased news, you don’t hear of roaming hordes of Christians killing Muslims and Hindus. You don’t hear of Christian terrorists. You don’t hear about Christian dictators killing all atheists. Without the true tolerance of the Judeo-Christian worldview, there would still be a slave trade in America. Even Samuel P. Huntington states that even though America is one of the most religious industrialized democracies, we “nonetheless tolerate and respect the rights of atheists and nonbelievers.” (Alfand and O’Brien 13) Now I will explain why the United States should and shouldn’t be hated by other countries.

Europeans shouldn’t hate us for being a Christian nation, because we really aren’t. America is secularizing at a steady rate, although a couple of decades behind Europe. Given a few more decades, we will be just as postmodern and “tolerant” as Europe. For the Islamic countries, they will hate us no matter what or until we become an Islamic country ourselves. They don’t like secularization or Christianity. Because of this, Europeans have another reason why they shouldn’t hate us. Just like during World War II, we are protecting them. If not for the American troops in the Middle East, Islamic terrorists would be attacking both America and Europe. America is like Bat Man at the end of “The Dark Night;” he has to be hated by the people for the good of the people.

I fear for our country. As future generations become more and more secularized and “tolerant”, who will stand up for truth and justice? Who will dethrone the dictators who kill millions? Who will fight against terrorists who murder the innocent? Who will protect the defenseless? Our world is heading toward destruction in the name of “tolerance.” In this future “tolerant” world, who will have the authority to deal out justice? “If theft/rape/murder is right for him, who am I to tell him he’s wrong?” These are all logical statements if filtered through the postmodern worldview. But we can see that these statements don’t line up with reality. We know that it is wrong to steal, to rape, and to murder. There is absolute morality. Truth is not relative. So what can we do to change the direction that our country is headed?

First off, to change where our country is going, we need to stop caring what other countries think. In elementary school, we were taught to do right, even if it wasn’t popular. Secondly, we need to get back to our Judeo-Christian foundations. We were founded on these principals. They worked for 200 plus years; why ditch them just because they aren’t popular anymore? The tragedy of 9/11 should be a wake up call. We shouldn’t change our country, because our enemies don’t like us. If our enemies are being friendly to us, it means we’re doing something wrong.

Work Cited

Alfano, Christine L., and Alyssa J. O'Brien. Envision in Depth: Reading, Writing, and Researching Arguments. New York: Longman, 2007