TONY
InThyLight.com

(PS: Thanks for all your support with Creation-Club.org. Since then I have changed to the new website above, In Thy Light. I am enjoying the new format and flexibility it offers!)

Thanks for your comment. I’ll try to answer your question the best I can. If someone asked me that question, the first thing I would say is that God has changed my heart and saved me, and the Holy Spirit leads me to accept the Bible as God’s Holy Word. That’s the first reason I believe the Bible is the word of God. The second reason is that unless you believe the Bible, you have no basis for believing anything at all.

The Bible, as God’s revelation, gives us the basis for logic, science, and ethics. No other faith, religion, or worldview can give an account for these things. Let me give a simple example. Let’s say your atheist neighbor comments on a recent heinous crime that was committed in the neighborhood. He states how immoral and horrible the crime was. You agree with him, but you ask him on what basis can he say the crime was wrong. How can he, given his assumption about the universe, say that something is wrong? He doesn’t believe in God or absolute truth. He lives in a materialistic universe. The acts of the criminal were caused by chemical reactions in his brain that he had no control over. It is how he evolved. And besides, just because society says the crime was wrong, that doesn’t mean anything. Society’s views may change in a year or two.

Can you see the general direction you can go in? You basically want to show that unless you believe in God and His word, you have no basis to believe in anything. You can then share the good news of the gospel. You can tell your neighbor about the One who has declared what is right and what is wrong.

I hope this is helpful. Please feel free to ask more questions. I would also refer you to the following link which has several short articles on apologetics that are very helpful.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/k/bahnsen-series/v/recent

Thanks for visiting the site and commenting. Please give a me a couple of days to answer your question. Thanks for your patience.

Many thanks,

Fred

“In short, when we ask, ‘What are the laws of logic?’ the short answer is that they are how we express the thinking of God, the nature of God’s thoughts being determined by His nature.”

So simply put and true.

In Christ,

TONY
Creation-Club.org

Thank you for your comment. I hope I can make my position a little more clear to you. In order to do science, you must believe certain things. You must believe the universe behaves in a uniform way. For example, if I run an experiment and get a certain result, I should be able to repeat the conditions exactly and get the same result. Likewise, other scientists all around the world should be able to repeat the experiment under the same conditions. This is sometimes called the “uniformity of nature.” Science would be impossible without the uniformity of nature. At a more fundamental level, we can speak of this as induction. It is my contention that only the Christian worldview can provide a basis for induction. No other worldview can. Let me give an example.

Let’s say I am a materialist and someone asks me the question, “How do you know that a ball when thrown up in the air for the one hundredth time will fall back down to earth as it did the previous ninety-nine times?” That is, how can I generalize my experience to the hundredth time or even to other balls that are thrown up in the air at different times all over the earth? How can I justify my use of inductive reasoning? If I seek to justify it by using past experience where it has been successful, that assumes the future will be like the past. Therefore, induction is justified by induction. This is a circular argument. I believe all unbelieving worldviews fail to give a philosophical basis for induction and the uniformity of nature.

On the other hand, the Christian finds the basis for the uniformity of nature in God. We expect the cosmos to behave in an orderly, logical fashion since God has created all things (John 1:1-3) and upholds all things (Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 1:3). God has created the universe with certain behaviors that we call “laws.” We can expect these laws to be consistent throughout the universe because of God’s character and being. God is immutable and does not change (James 1:17; Malachi 3:6). Also, God is omnipresent (Jeremiah 23:23-24; Psalm 139) and omnipotent (Revelation 19:6; Psalm 115:3). This is the Christian’s basis for the uniformity of nature.

So, a scientist can have faith in only the laws of science. A scientist can reject all religion. My argument is science itself has presuppositions that only make sense in terms of the Christian faith. When a scientist does science, he is operating in terms of Christian assumptions, even if he rejects them. The Bible discusses much of this in Romans chapter 1. It talks about how all of mankind is decieved by sin. We don’t see things as they truly are and we do not worship the Creator, although He is clearly seen through creation. In Romans 3, we learn that all of mankind is sinful and that Jesus Christ is the way of salvation.

I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any questions or need me to clarify something.

I live in a country where nobody takes creationism seriously. Many people here like to say how stupid Americans are — I do know it’s only a prejudice, but creationists are apparently working hard to confirm it.

A scientist must have faith in certain derived laws of science. These laws are then used as a basis for further exploration of scientific endeavor.

Are you therefore suggesting that a scientist has no right to deny faith in religion as they themselves have faith in certain laws of science? Is it possible to have faith in something other than religion? If someone has faith in ‘laws of science’ does this mean they automatically have faith in all things requiring faith, including all religions? I am asking these questions in the utmost of respect. I do not want to offend or disrespect. I am simply looking for an understanding of your argument.
Sincerely,
Anthony.

Her thinking was completely unfinished. This line of…umm, reasoning?…is the springboard for every theological error. IE, ‘God is free to contradict Himself. Since that is so, we cannot dogmatically cling to anything from Scripture.’ It feeds the notion of antirationalism. While of course God is not Himself logic, we should rest assured that He is logical.

God Bless

Resequitur

The power of evolutionary brainwashing is almost unbelievable. Evolutionist scientists will question everything EXCEPT the millions of years myth. Even if it forces them to imagine the scientifically impossible idea of soft tissue surviving for that length of time they still cling to it! Trying to reason against Evolution is like talking to someone involved in a cult.

… oh yeah, that little 10 trillion dollar Chicago Climate Exchange.

Lets take a simple economic view of what is likely to happen.

In the absence of sufficient alternative solutions/technologies, the only way western countries can ever attain the IPCC demands of CO2 emissions reduced to 40% below 1990 levels, (thats about 60% below todays) is to machine restrictions on the use of fossil fuels. Emission Trading schemes are an example.

As the use of fossil fuels is roughly linear with anthropogenic CO2 emissions, to attain a 60% reduction of emissions , means about the same proportion of reduction of fossil fuel usage, including petrol, diesel, heating oil, not to mention coal and other types including propane etc.

No matter how a restriction on the use of these is implemented even a 10% decrease will make the price of petrol go sky high. In otherwords, (and petrol is just one example) we can expect, if the IPCC has its way, a price rise on petrol of greater than 500%.
First of all, for all normal people, this will make the family car impossible to use. Worse than that though, the transport industry will also have to deal with this as well and they will need to pass the cost on to the consumer. Simple things like food will get prohibitively expensive. Manufacturers who need fossil energy to produce will either pass the cost on to the consumer or go out of business. If you live further than walking distance from work, you will be in trouble.
All this leads to an economic crash of terrible proportions as unemployment rises and poverty spreads.
I believe that this will be the effect of bowing to the IPCC and the AGW lobby. AND as AGW is a hoax it will be all in vain. The world will continue to do what it has always done while normal people starve and others at the top (including energy/oil companies and emission traders) will enjoy the high prices.

Neither this scenario nor any analysis of the cost of CO2 emission reductions is included in IPCC literature, and the Stern report which claims economic expansion is simply not obeying economic logic as it is known in todays academic world.

The fact that the emission reduction cost issue is not discussed, leads me to believe that there is a deliberate cover up of this issue. Fairly obviously the possibility of starvation will hardly appear to the masses.

AGW is baloney anyway!

Cheers

Roger

http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

I would like to discuss this more with you if you are interested.

I am thankful the Lord has raised up faithful men who desire to study and promote Biblical science. I didn’t know Kurt Wise studied under Gould. Very interesting!