My Reply To "Playd76" On YouTube

Every so often I'll view a Creation vs Evolutionism video or debate on YouTube and will come across some of the comments typed out regarding the video. I usually try to reply to one of the comments where I feel a person is at least attempting to use some logical argument and engage in some kind of dialogue hoping to reason with them. The biggest misconception that most of these atheist and evolutionists have is that they are unable to distinguish the difference between "Christianity" and "Religion". They fail to understand that Christians will stand right beside them when it comes to some of the things that were done in the name of religion. They seem to be confusing the Roman Catholic church and some of their practices which clearly contradict what Christ taught. Here is the dialogue between myself and "Playd76" from the video Creation vs Evolution:

Playd76 has also been invited to read this reply and then comment or debate via the comments section for this particular post to defend his/her argument. As I usually do this often I will attempt to paste various dialogues between myself and other commentators on YouTube so that you can see what the common arguments are as well as mistakes and misconceptions are between various belief groups.
_______

I started out the comment stating that there was no "empirical" evidence for Macro Evolution, that which teaches as fact that dogs produced non dogs and cats produced non cats etc...

by it's very definition

Em-pir-i-cal:

–adjective

1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment.

2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, esp. as in medicine.

3. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.

So by it's very definition, evolutionist do the same exact thing that Christians do. Has any evolutionist directly observed evolution occurring? Were they there at the beginning? When they find a dinosaur bone in the ground, how does this bone tell them that the animal even had offspring, nevertheless different or mutated ones?

What's amazing is that Playd76 and I are both using the same exact evidence available for everyone. The only difference is our presuppositions. I hope as I have been opened minded over the years (9) when studying this topic, so Playd76 will also set aside his/her presuppositions and consider the Christian message which is both resonable and rational. I'll respond point by point until comments are entered in the comment section and will then return dialogue from that section on. Anyone is welcome to add input as well.

Playd76's comment-

1 - No 'empirical' evidence? lol, you're going to need some paper pants if its true about ignorance being bliss. We have evidence from every branch of science supporting it, it's been biologically proven as i mentioned previously, what part of that didn't you understand? Are you now going to really show us your level of ignorance by telling us 'it's just a theory'? lol To call 'evolution' a religion is a joke. Firstly, this suggests you have problems with religion when you clearly 2 - don't being as you accept bronze age beliefs that would normally result in somebody being certified mentally ill under any other circumstances, (as Sam Harris say's "it seems like there's sanity in numbers" whilst we have the support of the entire scientific community as well as the colossal amount of evidence you're obviously oblivious too. Evolution simply describes part of nature & the fact that this part of nature is important to many people hardly makes evolution a religion. 3 - Religion explains ultimate reality whereas evolution ends with the development of life AFTER it had already began. Evolution also doesn't deal with the 'supernatural' in any way, shape or form. Creationism begins with a preconceived conclusion (making it biased from the outset) & desperately tries to find facts to support it (failing miserably as EVERY shred of empirical evidence supports evolution) unlike evolution that takes the facts then comes to an IMPARTIAL conclusion using 3 - ONLY the evidence available. Evolution is also open to revision or even abandonment as new evidence comes to light unlike the stagnant & bigoted nature of creationism. Look up 'Tiktaalik' if you have trouble accepting there are any transitional forms between marine & land animals. Again, we have this wonderful thing called evidence, you people should try it."your faith is much much greater than any Christian"How many people do you know of that have killed in the name of evolution?

My point by point reply;

"No 'empirical' evidence?........We have evidence from every branch of science supporting it, it's been biologically proven as i mentioned previously, what part of that didn't you understand?"

Well, could you be more specific about the "evidence" you speak of? What exactly was the evidence that put it over the top for you? What is the absolute evidence you saw that convinced you macro evolution is true and that all of the life we see today came from one single organism. Where did the "information" come from to change one animal into another animal? And it's funny you say it's been "biologically proven" Speaking of biology, could you demonstrate how the flagellum cell which has been demonstrated that it could not have evolved because all of it's components are required to be fully present or it doesn't work? So if this organism cannot be broken down any more without it falling apart how could it have evolved gradually since all of it's parts have to be present for it to work? I think you underestimate this little machine. This irreducibly complex motor can do some extraordinary things. You want me and others to believe that this could have come about by random chance and mutation without anything guiding it whatsoever? Natural selection doesn't work here alone because as mentioned before this did not gradually evolve. Darwin himself said "If it could ever be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."




My friend, biology is certainly not on your side - http://creationwiki.org/pool/images/7/7b/Bacterial_flagellum_diagram.png

"whilst we have the support of the entire scientific community as well as the colossal amount of evidence you're obviously oblivious too"

Wow - the entire scientific community believes in evolution? This is a major assumption on your part as not every scientist believes in evolution. But if I were to give you that, would evolution be true because every scientist believes in it? The obvious answer is "no". In Copernicus's day all scientist taught that the earth was the center of the universe, where they all right? It was once taught by all scientist that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects etc... Did this mean they were right? No, we now know that objects fall at the same speed when accelerated by gravity when there is no air resistance. So just because the majority agree on something doesn't mean they're right. However, I would like to return to my point that your statement is false to begin with because not every scientist believes in evolution. For instance, there are many professionally trained scientists who do not believe in the theory of evolution and are available to speak for groups or churches. Multiple speakers have Masters Degrees and PhD's. Some speakers include: Don DeYoung, who has a PhD in physics; Michael Oard, who has a Masters in Atmospheric Science; Eugene Chaffin, who has a Masters in Physics; David Kaufmann, who has a PhD in Human Anatomy; Kevin Anderson, who has a PhD in Microbiology; Mark Armitage, who has a Masters of Science in Biology. So are these men not scientist by your standards?

"Evolution simply describes part of nature & the fact that this part of nature is important to many people hardly makes evolution a religion."

No, what makes it a religion is that your belief in evolution requires faith because the origin of life and the production of new information through mutation has not been demonstrated under any conceivable circumstance.

consider some quotes from your own evolutionist's:

"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity - omnipotent chance." T. Rosazak, "Unfinished Animal", 1975, p. 101-102.


[Evolution]“…a full-fledged alternative to Christianity…Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” Michael Ruse. Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians. National Post (May 13, 2000). pB-3.


“…evolution is the backbone of biology and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on unproven theory. Is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation. Both are concepts which the believers know to be true, but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.” L.H. Matthews, "Introduction to Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin (1971 edition),


"In fact [subsequent to the publication of Darwin's book, Origin of Species], evolution became, in a sense, a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit with it. . To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all . . If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being? . . I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is Creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." H.S. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, p. 138 (1980) [emphasis his].


“This evolutionist doctrine is itself one of the strangest phenomena of humanity…a system destitute of any shadow of proof, and supported merely by vague analogies and figures of speech….Now no one pretends that they rest on facts actually observed, for no one has ever observed the production of even one species….Let the reader take up either of Darwin's great books, or Spencer's ‘Biology,’ and merely ask himself as he reads each paragraph, ‘What is assumed here and what is proved?’ and he will find the whole fabric melt away like a vision….We thus see that evolution as an hypothesis has no basis in experience or in scientific fact, and that its imagined series of transmutations has breaks which cannot be filled.” Sir William Dawson, The Story of Earth and Man. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1887, pp. 317, 322, 330, 339.


"Religion explains ultimate reality whereas evolution ends with the development of life AFTER it had already began"

Of which you are unable to explain how it began, and when you're asked about it you say "evolution and abiogenesis are two different things". Mere dodge ball in my opinion.

Creationism begins with a preconceived conclusion (making it biased from the outset) & desperately tries to find facts to support it (failing miserably as EVERY shred of empirical evidence supports evolution)

As does evolution. I have yet to debate any evolutionist who has not assumed right off the bat that the earth is millions of years old despite the contrary evidences. (ask, and I will be more than happy to provide you with evidence for a young earth) Even when soft dinosaur tissue and blood cells are presented to the skeptics, rather than say maybe dinosaurs aren't 65 million years old, they are busy trying to figure out how blood cells could have survided for millions of years??? And the latter portion of that statement is another assumption as EVERY shred of empirical evidence does not support evolution. The fossil record alone is of great embarrassment to your theory. Gary Parker said;

"Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation." (Dr. Gary Parker, Ph.D., Biologist/paleontologist and former Evolutionist)

Article; What does the fossil record teach us about evolution? - http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c006.html

"Evolution is also open to revision or even abandonment as new evidence comes to light unlike the stagnant & bigoted nature of creationism"

This statement, yet again, is another one blindly stated by yourself. If this statement is true why are such information like Haeckel's Embryo drawings which were disproved in 1868 as fraudulent and even his own University held him on trial, still in text books? And what about Piltdown man and other supposed missing links that are still being portrayed in text books.? And Archeopteryx which was proven to be a bird from the beginning obtaining all the necessary components for flight already present. Why aren't these being "abandoned" once disproved? It seems as though your evolutionist just don't want to let them go.

Piltdown Man
A piece of skull bone was found in 1912. Later, a jawbone was discovered nearby and said to be from the same creature as the skull piece. Evolutionists claimed that the skull had human features and the jaw was apelike, showing “proof” that apes evolved into man. Actually, the skull was human, but the jawbone was from an orangutan. The teeth had been filed down to make them look more human! Yet it took over 40 years before this hoax was disproved.

Archaeoraptor
This more recent discovery was used to prove that dinosaurs evolved into birds. A Chinese farmer dug up pieces of fossil in two separate places, then pasted the pieces together. It was supposed to look like a dinosaur that was developing feathers. National Geographic magazine published this as proof of the evolutionary link between dinosaurs and birds. Later, the fossil was shown to be from two different animals.

"Look up 'Tiktaalik' if you have trouble accepting there are any transitional forms between marine & land animals"

The fact that you believe Tiktaalik to be a transitional form shows you are parakeeting information. This is a fish, it has gills, not lungs. Your faith is evident, you need to use your "imagination" to turn Tiktaalk into any other thing than a fish.

consider what Dr. David Menton stated regarding this special fish

Many species of living fish are known to breathe air as well as slither on their bellies, with the help of their pectoral fins, across large expanses of land (evolutionists call this “walking”). For example, the northern snakehead and the “walking catfish” (Clarias batrachus) are air–breathing fish that can travel overland for considerable distances. The mudskippers are fish that breathe oxygen through their skin and “skip” along on land with the aid of their fleshy fins. The climbing perch (Anabas testudineus) not only breathes air and “walks” on land but is even capable of climbing trees! Yet none of these curious fish are considered by evolutionists to be ancestors of tetrapods—they are simply interesting and specialized fish.

Whatever else we might say about Tiktaalik, it is a fish. In a review article on Tiktaalik (appearing in the same issue of the scientific journal Nature that reported the discovery of Tiktaalik), fish evolution experts, Ahlberg and Clack concede that “in some respects Tiktaalik and Panderichthys are straightforward fishes: they have small pelvic fins, retain fin rays in their paired appendages and have well-developed gill arches, suggesting that both animals remained mostly aquatic.”

Without the author’s evolutionary bias, of course, there is no reason to assume that Tiktaalik was anything other than exclusively aquatic. And how do we know that Tiktaalik lost its gill cover as opposed to never having one? The longer snout and lack of bony gill covers (found in many other exclusively-aquatic living fish) are interpreted as indicating a reduced flow of water through the gills, which, in turn, is declared to be suggestive of partial air-breathing—but this is quite a stretch. Finally, what does any of this have to do with fish evolving into land dwelling tetrapods?

"......we will see that there are no known fish with true “legs” (and certainly no feet), and none capable of actually “walking”—except in the most trivial sense of the word. "

"How many people do you know of that have killed in the name of evolution?"

For Starters,

Eric Auvinen:

Just before last year’s shooting, killer Pekka-Eric Auvinen claimed online he would act as a “natural selector” to “eliminate all who I see unfit, disgraces of human race, and failures of natural selection.” He concluded, "I am prepared to fight and die for my cause. . . . I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgraces of human race and failures of natural selection. No, the truth is that I am just an animal, a human, an individual, a dissident

. . . . It’s time to put NATURAL SELECTION & SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST back on tracks!" [emphasis in original]. He also called himself a “social Darwinist” and, during the massacre, wore a shirt that read, “humanity is overrated” in all-caps.

Matt Juhani Saari:

Shot and killed 10 people at a vocational college in the town of Kauhajoki, Finland. Cornered in by police, he shot himself and died later at a hospital. In all, Saari killed eight female students, one male student, and one male teacher, and also wounded a female student. Der Spiegel reports that Saari “was apparently fascinated by the American students who shot up Columbine High School in 1999” in an article explaining how Saari had planned the shooting since 2002

Eric Harris & Dylan Klebold (Columbine Shooters):

The boys killed 12 students and a teacher, and wounded 23 others. Eric Harris wore a t-shirt that read "Natural Selection" on it. The boys made a video about a year or so before the shooting. In the video one of the boys, speaking of Isaiah Shoels, an african america athelete. "look for his jaw (Isaiah Shoels) it won't be there, he doesn't deserve the jaw evolution gave him" (paraphrased) The boys did the shooting on April 20th purposely because it was Hitler's birthday.

Hitler:

Hitler was full of evolutionary thinking. In his book "Mein Kampf" you can read all about his racist philosphy. Hitler also valued both Darwin’s and Nietzche’s books. When Hitler killed 6 million Jews, he was only doing what Darwin taught.

*Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) was chancellor of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945. He carefully studied the writings of *Darwin and *Nietzsche. Hitler’s book, MeinKampf, was based on evolutionary theory (*Sir ArthurKeith, Evolution and Ethics, 1947, p. 28). The very title of the book (“My Struggle” [to survive and overcome]) was copied from a Darwinian expression. Hitler believed he was fulfilling evolutionary objectives by eliminating “undesirable individuals and inferior races” in order to produce Germany’s “Master Race” (*Larry Azar, Twen-tieth Century in Crisis, 1990, p. 180).

Sir Arthur Keith was a British anthropologist, an atheistic evolutionist and an anti-Nazi, but he drew this chilling conclusion: ‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’

So though evolution is not to be blamed as the direct cause of these actions, it is to be noted for the influence it gave to these individuals.

Joe

How Did Noah Fit All The "Species" On The Ark (Video)

How Did Noah Fit All The "Species" On The Ark

Whenever I debate people, this question is always sure to follow. It's actually quite a good question. The only problem is the individuals presuppositions when asking it. You see, the media has fed many the notion and picture of an overcrowded small boat with various animals such as the Giraffe with his/her head hanging over the rail. However, nothing could have been further from the truth. Listen in as Eric Hovind shows that while today's scientist refer to the many diverse animal groups as "species" God always referred to them as "kinds" If one studies the dimensions of the ark - you can see that it had more than enough room to support the original "kinds" and Noah's family.

‘James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.’ - The James claims

Excerpt;

Time magazine said that if the inscription refers to ‘the right James’ it would be ‘the most important discovery in the history of New Testament archaeology.’4 The magazine also stated, ‘Almost no educated person these days doubts that Jesus lived.’5 It went further by quoting Hershel Shanks, editor of the liberal Biblical Archaeology Review, as conceding (remarkably, for a Jewish writer): ‘[This ossuary] is something tactile and visible reaching back to the single most important personage ever to walk the earth.’


here's an excellent article from AiG - it's an old one but something many people aren't aware of. This should greatly encourage those who don't compromise the word of God and hold it to be the inerrant Word of the Living God. An ossuary on which was inscribed, in Aramaic, the words ‘James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus' was found back in 2002. For those who doubt Jesus even existed, I beg you to be open minded and consider the huge implications of this if it's true.

Im slightly reminded of what Lee Strobel said long ago - "One thing Christianity has on it's side.........Truth!"

Enjoy the article everyone.

The James Claims

For the 1,500 years after they occupied their promised land, Israelites were buried in graves dug in the ground or tombs cut out of the rock. But between about 20 BC and AD 70, a different form of burial was popular. Bodies were buried or interred until the flesh disintegrated, then the bones were collected and placed in an ossuary (bone box).

Many such ossuaries have been discovered. In recent times an ossuary was discovered on which was an inscription bearing the name of Caiaphas, the High Priest who presided over the trial of Jesus Christ. It is for now in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. That was quite a spectacular discovery, but now an even more spectacular discovery has been made—an ossuary on which was inscribed, in Aramaic, the words ‘James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.’

Actually, this ossuary is said to have been in the possession of an Israeli for a number of years. He says he purchased it from an Arab antiquities dealer in Jerusalem for US$400 (it is now estimated to be worth about US$2 million). But he took no interest in the inscription engraved on the side of the ossuary. Being Israeli, no doubt he could read it—but the names held no great significance for him. He stated, ‘I didn’t know that Jesus had a brother.’1

However, in mid-2002, Professor André Lemaire of Paris, a specialist in ancient inscriptions, happened to meet the owner and see the ossuary. Lemaire was startled to read the words engraved on the side of the box.

Critics have been quick to point out that Joseph, James (Jacob in Hebrew) and Jesus (Joshua/Yeshua in Hebrew) were common names in the time of Christ, and therefore it does not prove that this Jesus was Jesus Christ, the founder of the Christian religion. One critic even suggested that there could have been 20 men by the name of Jesus, whose father was Joseph and who had a brother named Jacob (James), living in Jerusalem at the time, but what the critics are ignoring is the unique nature of this wording.

It was common for the name of the deceased to be written on his ossuary, and in some cases the father’s name was added, but this is the only known case of one of the deceased’s brothers being named. The fact that James’s brother is added, and that the brother’s name is Jesus, is just too much of a coincidence for it to be lightly dismissed. Obviously, this brother of James was a well-known or significant figure, and Jesus Christ certainly fits that scenario.

In fact, it seems so perfect that the antiquity of the writing has been questioned. Perhaps some well-meaning Christian (or not so well-meaning forger) did the engraving in recent times? But archaeologists have a way of testing such inscriptions—after all, this would not be the first time a forgery has been attempted. The curvature of the writing and the scratch marks of the chisel can be tested to determine its antiquity. The patina (incrustation accumulated over centuries of time) testifies to its antiquity. According to the experts, the present inscription stands up well to these tests, and the patina is even present in the lettering of the inscription.

According to a Sydney Morning Herald report, Dr Lawrence Stager, Professor of Archaeology at Harvard University, who excavated the dog cemetery in Ashkelon, stated that: ‘It will be extremely important if it’s authentic. Everything that they’ve put in this non-technical article seems to point in that direction.’ He added that if the discovery proved genuine it would have a big impact on the debate over how accurately Christian texts depicted the life of Jesus, and would force scholars to take the New Testament more seriously.

It is hardly realistic to question the historical existence of Jesus Christ. It would be hard to explain the existence of the early Christian church if Jesus was a mythical figure, but some continue to raise that possibility. Professor Stager points out that ‘You’ll never prove or disprove the miracles of Jesus, but to give him an actual authentic setting of place and person is no small accomplishment.’

According to Matthew 13:55, Jesus had some sisters and four brothers, ‘James, Joses, Simon and Judas,’ which, in Hebrew, would have been Jacob, Joseph, Simeon and Judah. His brothers once tried to pressure Jesus into going to Jerusalem, scornfully suggesting, ‘If you do these things, show yourself to the world’ (John 7:3).

Jesus performed no miracles before he left home to start his ministry, and John 7:5 states that ‘his brothers did not believe in him.’ However, according to the Apostle Paul, Jesus appeared to James after He rose from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:7), and apparently this resulted in James’s conversion. He seems to have become the head of the early Christian church, since he delivered the judgment of the church’s council in Jerusalem. After a lengthy discussion about the church’s attitude to the Gentiles, James said, ‘I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God’ (Acts 15:19).

Josephus wrote that the High Priest ‘assembled the Sanhedrin of the judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others [or some of his companions;] and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.’2

When Stephen was stoned to death, ‘devout men carried Stephen to his burial’ (Acts 8:2). The same could have happened with James. Devout men may have removed his body and interred it in a tomb, later to deposit his bones in the ossuary which has now come to light. What has happened to his bones is irrelevant. An antiquities dealer would have no interest in bones, though some dust and bone chips still lie at the bottom of the ossuary.3

In any case, the discovery is so spectacular that the Toronto Museum immediately negotiated with the owner, who agreed to put it on display at the museum. Unfortunately, it was not properly packed for the journey, and when it arrived, it was found to have suffered a number of large cracks, which experts are now frantically trying to rectify.

Time magazine said that if the inscription refers to ‘the right James’ it would be ‘the most important discovery in the history of New Testament archaeology.’4 The magazine also stated, ‘Almost no educated person these days doubts that Jesus lived.’5 It went further by quoting Hershel Shanks, editor of the liberal Biblical Archaeology Review, as conceding (remarkably, for a Jewish writer): ‘[This ossuary] is something tactile and visible reaching back to the single most important personage ever to walk the earth.’

Despite the importance of this find to Biblical Christianity, we are not suggesting that artifacts should be used to try to ‘prove’ the Bible. Historical (forensic) sciences like archaeology have immense value, but, like attempts at evolutionary reconstruction of the past, they are greatly limited. Much depends on the bias and starting beliefs of the researcher. Those who take God at His word will be encouraged, but not surprised, whenever evidence comes to light to confirm the reliable, historical accounts of the Bible.

Evidence For Authenticity From Archeology

You've guessed it folks. If the bible is the true authentic Word of God, then we will see evidences from all branches of life wouldn't we? Yes we would, and we surely do. Here is just one of the many aspects of the evidences from Archeology that support what the New Testament claims. I challenge anyone who has doubts about the scriptures to do an intellectually honest study on the claims which the scriptures make. No reasonable person would deny, based on the many evidences, that this book has been divinely preserved over the centuries. The Qur’an can do no such thing. The book of Mormon can do no such thing. None of Nichiren's writings can do this. God has promised to supernaturally preserve his word and He has done so beautifully.

I hope some of you will take the time to examine the claims of scripture and what Christianity teaches. Unfortunately in this day and age, no one will be able to stand before the Judgment seat of God and say "Lord, I didn't know" No man or woman will have an excuse for scripture itself says "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." (Rom 1:20)

And make no mistake about it, there will be a judgment "..as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment" (Heb 9:27)

We will all have to stand before the creator and give an account for every word that has come out of our mouth "But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken." (Matt 12:36)

We have all broken God's law (10 commandments) and like a man who stands in a courtroom guilty of his crime, so we are guilty before God. We have all created idols for ourselves, we have all stolen, lied and looked upon others with lust. No man is innocents before Jesus Christ. And because God is a righteous judge, he will give the full penalty for these crimes. What Judge does not convict people and exercise justice? We would never except a judge who allows a criminal to go free after raping and murdering someone would we? No, we would demand justice. And so those who have this notion that God is a loving God and would never do that (punish man for sin), and those who like to argue to the death that He is a God who will just forgive everything on the spot are going to be in for a surprise. It will be because HE IS a good, holy and righteous God that he will punish all of those who committed these crimes. But as the scripture says, He has given "Mercy and Justice" to us at the same time.

All of those who repent of their sins and ask God to forgive them for offending a holy righteous God and trust in Jesus the way you would trust in a parachute when jumping out of a plane, will be saved. What awaits the man that goes to the president and commits a crime against him and/or his family? How much more the man/woman who offends and commits a crime against God, the Savior, the giver of all life?

Trust and repent, your eternal destination depends on it. I'm not trying to scare any man, though there is good reason to be afraid. I pray that these posts will save many, and that many who proffess but are not walking the walk, would stop living a lie and enter the battle that has been going on for centuries. We are almost there brothers and sisters, it's almost over. Anyone who has been following the scriptures closely knows we are in the end times and Jesus said "Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. (Rev 22:12)

Are There Any Secular Sources For Christ & Christianity?

One thing you CANT ever say is that Jesus never lived and wasn't a real person. If there is anyone who tells you that, they are purposefully and willingly being ignorant - there is great evidence and a number of sources outside the bible that refer to Jesus and Christians as well as various events, times and places that occurred are mentioned in scripture. This is exactly what you would find if Christianity and the bible are true.

Secular Sources For The Validity Of Jesus:

This article comes from 4Truth.net and is an excellent quick reference guide (not an exhaustive list) of a number of references who spoke of Jesus Christ. Good luck trying to prove the Savior never existed.

Did Jesus Really Exist?

By Paul L. Maier, The Russell H. Seibert Professor of Ancient History, Western Michigan University

"No, he didn't!" some skeptics claim, thinking that this is a quick, powerful lever with which to pry people away from "the fable of Christianity." But the lever crumbles at its very first use. In fact, there is more evidence that Jesus of Nazareth certainly lived than for most famous figures of the ancient past. This evidence is of two kinds: internal and external, or, if you will, sacred and secular. In both cases, the total evidence is so overpowering, so absolute that only the shallowest of intellects would dare to deny Jesus' existence. And yet this pathetic denial is still parroted by "the village atheist," bloggers on the Internet, or such organizations as the Freedom from Religion Foundation.

The Internal Evidence

Aside from the many Messianic predictions in the Old Testament, not one of the four Gospels or the 23 other documents in the New Testament would make an ounce of sense if Jesus had never lived. Did the whole cavalcade of well-known historical personalities in the first century A.D. who interacted with Jesus deal with a vacuum? Did Herod the Great try to terminate an infant ghost? Did the Jewish high priests Annas and Caiaphas interview a spirit? Did the Roman governor Pontius Pilate judge a phantom on Good Friday, or Paul and so many apostles give their lives for a myth?

No one doubts that the above names are well known from both sacred and secular sources, as well as archaeological evidence, and are therefore historical. The same is clearly true of Jesus of Nazareth. But why, then, is Jesus not permitted the "luxury" of actually having lived as did the rest of these? Why the double standard here?

From the internal, biblical evidence alone, therefore, Jesus' existence is simply categorical. And yet there is an abundance of additional extra biblical information on this question.
The External Evidence: Christian

Another long paragraph could be devoted to writings of the early church fathers, some of whom had close contact with New Testament personalities. Jesus' disciple John, for example, later became bishop of the church at Ephesus. One of his students was Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, and a student of his, in turn, was Irenaeus of Lyons. The centerpiece in all of their writings was Jesus the Christ ("Messiah").

Apart from such living personal links to Jesus, both geographical and temporal tangencies appear in Justin Martyr. Born of pagan parents around A.D. 100 in Nablus (between Judea and Galilee), Justin tried and abandoned various philosophical schools until he found in Christianity the one true teaching. As a native of the Holy Land, Justin mentions sites associated with Jesus, such as the Bethlehem grotto in which he was born, and even such details as Jesus working as an apprentice carpenter in the shop of his foster father Joseph, where they specialized in producing such agricultural implements as yokes for oxen and plows.

External Evidence: Jewish

The Jewish rabbinical traditions not only mention Jesus, but they are also the only sources that spell his name accurately in Aramaic, his native tongue: Yeshua Hannotzri—Joshua (Jesus) of Nazareth. Some of the references to Jesus in the Talmud are garbled—probably due to the vagaries of oral tradition—but one is especially accurate, since it seems based on written sources and comes from the Mishna—the earliest collection of writings in the Talmud. This is no less than the arrest notice for Jesus, which runs as follows:

He shall be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and lured Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf. Anyone who knows where he is, let him declare it to the Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem.

Four items in this statement strongly support its authenticity as a notice composed before Jesus' arrest: 1) The future tense is used; 2) Stoning was the regular punishment for blasphemy among the Jews whenever the Roman government was not involved; 3) There is no reference whatever to crucifixion; and 4) That Jesus was performing "sorcery"— the extraordinary or miraculous with a negative spin—is quite remarkable. This not only invokes what historians call the "criterion of embarrassment," which proves what is conceded, but accords perfectly with how Jesus' opponents explained away his miraculous healings: performing them with the help of Beelzebul (Luke 11:18).

Moreover, the first-century Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, twice mentions "Jesus who is called the Christ" in his Jewish Antiquities. In the second of these, he tells of the death of Jesus' half-brother James the Just of Jerusalem (20:200). And two books earlier, in the longest first-century non-biblical reference to Christ, he tells of Jesus midway through his discussion of events in Pontius Pilate's administration:

At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day. (18:63)

This is the recent, uninterpolated text that replaces the traditional version which, unfortunately, had suffered early interpolation. For a more detailed evaluation of Josephus and his references to Jesus, please see my separate article on Josephus in this series.

External Evidence: Secular

Cornelius Tacitus, one of the most reliable source historians of first-century Rome, wrote in his Annals a year-by-year account of events in the Roman Empire under the early Caesars. Among the highlights that he reports for the year A.D. 64 was the great fire of Rome. People blamed the emperor Nero for this conflagration since it happened "on his watch," but in order to save himself, Nero switched the blame to "the Christians," which is the first time they appear in secular history. Careful historian that he was, Tacitus then explains who "the Christians" were: "Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus" (15:44). He then goes on to report the horrors that were inflicted on the Christians in what became their first Roman persecution.

Tacitus, it should be emphasized, was not some Christian historian who was trying to prove that Jesus Christ really lived, but a pagan who despised Christians as a "disease," a term he uses later in the passage. Had Jesus never even existed, he would have been the first to expose that pathetic phantom on whom such cultists placed their trust. Were no other references to Jesus available, this passage alone would have been sufficient to establish his historicity. Skeptics realize this, and so have tried every imaginable means to discredit this passage—but to no avail. Manuscript analysis and computer studies have never found any reason to call this sentence into question, nor its context.

Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus also recorded events of the first century in his famous Lives of the Twelve Caesars. He, too, regarded the Christians as a sect "professing a new and mischievous religious belief" (Nero 16) and doubtless cited "Christus" as well, spelling his name "Chrestus" (Claudius 25). That the vowels "e" and "i" were often interchangeable is demonstrated by the French term for "Christian" to this day: chretien.

Pliny the Younger was the Roman governor of Bithynia—today, the northwestern corner of Turkey—and about the year 110 he wrote the emperor Trajan (98-117 A.D.), asking what to do about the Christians, a "wretched cult" whom he mentions eight times in his letter. Christ himself is cited three times, the most famous instance referring to Christians "...who met on a fixed day to chant verses alternately among themselves in honor of Christ, as if to a god..." (Letter No. 96). Trajan's response, interestingly enough, suggests that Christians not be hunted out. (Ibid., No. 97). But again, if Christ were only a mythical character, these hostile sources would have been the first to emblazon that fact in derision.

Other ancient secular sources, such as Theudas and Mara bar Serapion also bear witness to the historicity of Jesus. But any further evidence clearly comes under the "beating a dead horse" category so far as this article is concerned. Nothing more is necessary in view of the overpowering evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was no myth, but a totally historical figure who truly lived. Skeptics should focus instead on whether or not Jesus was more than a man. That, at least, could evoke a reasonable debate among reasonable inquirers, rather than a pointless discussion with sensationalists who struggle to reject the obvious.

No, Mr. President: John Piper's Response to President Obama on Abortion

Pastor John Piper's response to President's Obama's statement on the 36th anniversary of Roe vs Wade. This needs no further comment from me...

The Truth Hurts Sometimes...

Paul Washer Delivers the "State of the SBC pulpit" address



Paul Washer on a few words regarding certain preachers at the Southern Baptist Conference. Brace yourself for this one folks. This is a stern awakening for false preachers. And in my opinion, a major warning for new, young and upcoming pastors just coming out of seminary. Be sure to adhere to scripture and only scripture, anything added to it is heretical.

Do Christians and Muslims Worship the Same God?

Ergun Caner, in my opinion does a wonderful job of offering a quick answer as to why the often misconception of Christianity and Islam (Muslims) worshipping the same God is not true -





Thanks to this video from Lee Strobel's website which I highly recommend for a great apologetic resource (http://www.leestrobel.com/). In addition, and for extras, I have also placed in this posting a debate between Matt Slick (from CARM) and Muslim Nadir Ahmad so you can get an idea and feel for various arguments between the Muslim faith and Christianity. The debate is mostly about the doctrine of the Trinity and how Nadir lacks an understanding of it as he tries to argue that we believe in three distinct gods. Enjoy - More debates between Muslims and Christians will follow.






Nadir Ahmad Vs Matt Slick

Ergun Caner's Conversion

The Probability Problem

I heard a great illustration listening to a podcast on atheism once, it was rather humorous but without a doubt true. It went something like this:



Perhaps you've heard of the man who thought he was dead? In reality he was very much alive. His delusion became such a problem that his family finally paid for him to see a psychiatrist.The psychiatrist spent many laborious sessions trying to convince the man he was still alive. Nothing seemed to work. Finally the doctor tried one last approach. He took out his medical books and proceeded to show the patient that dead men don't bleed. After hours of tedious study, the patient seemed convinced that dead men don't bleed."Do you now agree that dead men don't bleed?" the doctor asked."Yes, I do," the patient replied."Very well, then," the doctor said. He took out a pin and pricked the patient's finger. Out came a trickle of blood. The doctor asked, "What does that tell you?""Oh my goodness!" the patient exclaimed as he stared incredulously at his finger ... "Dead men do bleed!!"



Sometimes Atheist/Evolutionist can act in the same manner. The After Eden cartoon above is a great illustration of that. Even after the calculations are given and a number too large for man to articulate comes out to be what the chances are for "molecules to man" evolution to have occurred, man still chooses to "hope" that it is true.



"What would be involved in the accidental development of a single living cell? The fact is that the most elementary form of life is more complicated than any manmade thing on earth. The entire complex of New York City is less complicated than the makeup of the simplest microscopic cell.



It is more than ridiculous to talk about its chance production. Scientists themselves assure us that the structure of a single cell is unbelievably intricate. The chance for a proper combination of molecules into amino acids, and then into proteins with the properties of life is entirely unrealistic. "

American Scientist magazine made this admission in January of 1955:

"From the probability standpoint, the ordering of the present environment into a single amino acid molecule would be utterly improbable in all the time and space available for the origin of terrestrial life."


A Swiss mathematician, Charles Eugene Guye, actually computes the odds against such an occurrence at only one chance in 10(160). That means 10 multiplied by itself 160 times, a number too large even to articulate. Another scientist expressed it this way:
"The amount of matter to be shaken together to produce a single molecule of protein would be millions of times greater than that in the whole universe. For it to occur on earth alone would require many, almost endless, billions of years." The Evidence of God in an Expanding Universe, p. 23.


So why, with odds like these, do atheists and evolutionist still put their faith in such a dying theory? May I offer up a suggestion? It's because they must consider the alternative which is that an ultimate intelligent creator created it (life) And this means that ultimately they will be held accountable for their moral actions.

I debate atheist and evolutionist quite often and they always seem to repeat the proclamation "well I don't believe in God" Don't you understand that it doesn't matter whether you believe in God or not? Could you imagine if I stood up on the Empire State Building and proclaimed that I don't believe in gravity? What will my profession of not believing in gravity do for me once I step off that ledge? And in the same way your claim that God doesn't exist does nothing for you on the day when the Son of God is revealed and comes riding in the clouds, of which the scripture says "every eye will see him". (Rev 1:7) It will be a horrific day for the unbelieving and ungodly. The bible says "And just as it is appointed unto man to die once, and after that comes judgment" Heb 9:27 There will be nowhere to run, and no man will be able to hide from His presence. And those who have trusted in Him here on the earth will be gathered up with him in the air, and the event will be so great, scripture says even dead men will rise too! This is the time for you to look into these things. Oh how patient God has been with you, what grace he has given you that he has not come an hour ago or yesterday! But he is patient. God is wanting all men to come to repentance, He wants no one in hell. Hell was never meant for you and I, it was "prepared for the Devil and his angels" (Matt 25:41) Take advantage of "today" while it is still here. For those who think at the last minute you will accept God and be saved, you have been fed a lie. And just as when you are in court and about to be sentenced to a life in prison, you will be unable to say, Judge please forgive me for my wrong doing, I'm a good person, your crime will still need to be paid for because the judge is a just judge isn't he? What kind of a judge would let a criminal go? He would not be a just judge if he did this. Instead, on that day, you and many others will hear those great and terrifying words "Go away, I never knew you, you workers of iniquity"

The ESV, in context says:

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'

And this is not only for unbelievers, but some who profess to believe as well. In fact the verse above is to professing active believers in the church. And those who once professed and walked with God and are guilty where the scriptures has stated "They honor me with their lips but their hearts are far from me" In other words you claim to believe and follow but your life style suggest something else. On that day the two will be separated and those who enjoyed the presence of the lamb here on earth will forever be with him in eternity. I strongly urge those who doubt, to make an intellectual decision before making the blind profession that there is no God, because eternity is a long time. And I no doubt believe that you will remember for all eternity the day and the person who once presented the gospel and the opportunity to be saved by Jesus Christ who freely gives salvation to you and bore punishment you truly deserved, and ignored them. Think about it please...

The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution

Here's something Darwin said in his book "The Origin of Species. by Means of Natural Selection,. or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"

"If it could ever be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

There are a number of such organisms that exist but one of the best known examples of this is the Flagellum Cell and what Micheal Behe from Lehigh University, Pa calls "Irreducible Complexity" This is direct proof that this organism did not slowly evolve into this highly intricate and complex motor, for all pieces need to be fully present for it to work or it fails. Therefore, it could not have "gradually" evolved to a more complex organism. It is the direct design of a master engineer!

The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution

Why I'm not an Atheist - Ravi Zacharias

"Why I'm not an Atheist" by Ravi Zacharias a well known Christian Apologetic - l listen to Ravi's Pod Cast which I download via iTunes every week - He is a great voice in our time and battles the forefront of the Atheistic world view on a daily basis. Enjoy. Comments are always welcomed and encouraged.

Feel free to download these to your mp3 player or just listen to them using Windows media or Quick Time. If anyone has a problem listening to these please let me know.


Why I am Not an Atheist part 1

Why I am Not an Atheist part 2