I've moved!

To all my faithful readers (at least those few who might be left), as well as to any new people who have started visiting hoping to find new comment, you may have noticed it's been a while since I've blogged. By “a while,” I mean nearly 2 years. Yikes!!

There's an old saying that could apply here: the more you miss blogging, the less you miss blogging. I don't know for sure what made me get away, but once I was away for a while, it just never seemed like there was time to get back to it. Shame on me. There were times in the past when I would miss a few months and I'd always felt like I was too busy with other things and so I blamed those other things. However, when there's been a 2 year absence, there has to be other things going on.

Life is stressful – but so is everyone's life so I shouldn't use that as an excuse. Maybe I was burned out, if that's really a thing. I guess that's part of it but something else was just nagging at me. It's just hard to put my finger on it. Perhaps I wasn't happy with the content I was posting - like my writing just wasn't up to par. Maybe I wanted to grow my blog into other mediums but I wasn't sure how. Maybe I got away from the things that made me want to start blogging in the first place and that I was spending more time writing than learning. Whatever the cause, the result is the same and it's too bad. I've always felt like blogging is my ministry, so the time I spent away from blogging could be said to be time spent in rebellion.

Having said that, I did like some of the material I'd posted here. I also spent some of my absence studying, learning, and growing. I've decided to take some of my ideas and launch a new blog with a different URL. It will also be called, A Sure Word but the new URL is 2Peter119.blogspot.com. I'm leaving this blog up, but I won't be posting new material here. If you've liked visiting my blog here, please visit me there.

Thank you, thank you, thank you! God bless!!

RKBentley

RKBentley, author

Answering TalkOrigins “Frequently asked but never answered questions”: Part 2

I'm writing a series responding to an article from TalkOrigins.org titled, FABNAQ (Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions). I'm hoping to answer 2-3 questions with each post but the first 2 questions had multiple sub-questions so I answered only question #1 in my first post and now I'm answering only question #2 in my second. And even though I'm only answering a single question, this is a longer post than usual. Thanks in advance for your patience. Let's get on to the next question:

2. Is there any observation which supports any feature of your theory? (An adequate answer to this question will not be something which is a problem for evolution, but is rather evidence for your theory. Remember that it is logically possible for both evolution and your theory to be false. Something which appears to support Lamarkian evolution rather than Darwinian, or punctuated equilibrium rather than gradualism is not enough. Also, the observation must be something which can be checked by an independent observer.)

I've talked many times before about the nature of theories and evidence. In short, theories are our attempts to explain the evidence. A fossil, for example, doesn't tell us how it came to be. Instead, we use our theories to explain how the fossil came to be. I believe most fossils were created suddenly in the Flood described in Genesis. Someone else may believe the fossil formed in a local event (like a flooded stream), which buried the creature. Both theories could explain how the fossil formed yet the fossil doesn't tell us which is true. The fossil is simply data and isn't really for either theory.

This idea that evidence is for any theory seems rather circular to me. If I invent a theory to explain some thing, how could I then say the thing is evidence for my theory? If I found a black rock with purple stripes painted on it, I could theorize that aliens painted the stripes on the rock. What evidence do I have for this theory, you might ask? Well, there's the rock and there are the stripes so that proves it! You can see how that doesn't work.

The question should be, which theory better explains the evidence? It seems obvious that the better theory is the one that best explains the evidence. And if that is true, then problems for evolution do tend to be evidence for creation. I wrote a series a couple of years ago, where I suggested 10 observations that were better explained by creation than evolution/naturalism. I'll link to the series below but here are a few points from that series:

• Secular origin stories claim matter/energy just poofed into existence. They believe there must have been a natural cause for nature but that's like saying nature created nature. It's absurd. It's far more reasonable to believe that something outside of nature caused nature – something “super”-natural.
• Secular scientists still cling to a type of spontaneous generation which they now call “abiogenesis.” It's similar to the long discarded belief that maggots would spring out of rotting meat. Every example of spontaneous generation that was once believed to have occurred has been debunked through experimentation and observation (AKA, “science”). Now, evolutionists similarly believe the first life-form sprang out of a fortunate arrangement of amino acids. They haven't seen it happen. They can't make it happen. They just blindly believe it did happen. It's far more reasonable to believe God created life.
• Mimicry is an observed phenomenon where one creature looks and/or behaves like another creature. A fly might look like a bee; a lizard might look like a leaf; a moth might look like an owl. There is an obvious survival advantage to this – prey can more easily hide from predators or maybe it appears too dangerous to approach. But how did such remarkable similarities evolve? Evolutionists have their stories: each generation of fly was tested by natural selection, and the fly most similar to the bee survived until, over time, the fly looked a lot like the bee. The problem with this story is that evolution is not supposed to be a directed process. Natural selection didn't know the fly should look more like a bee. Furthermore, the bee is also supposed to be evolving so it wouldn't matter if the fly looked like the bee if the bee was going to look like something else in a million years. To believe such a remarkable similarity could evolve naturally is improbable. To believe it has happened thousands of times is laughable. It is far more reasonable to believe the similarities are the product of design.

As I've said, evolutionists have their own explanations for these things. The question is, which is the better explanation. In many cases, creation is the better theory to explain what we observe.

Related articles:

10 Evidences for Biblical Creation

A Monopoly on the Evidence

Ten Lies Evolutionists Tell: Part 3

2a. Is there any observation which was predicted by your theory?

If two theories predict the same thing, then that thing really wouldn't be evidence for either theory. For example, because the Bible says there was a flood that covered even the tallest mountains, I could predict we might find fossils of aquatic animals on the top of even the tallest mountains. Sure enough, we do find shells on the top of the Himalayas. Now, people who believe in evolution have their own theories on why there are fossils on the tops of mountains. It's as I've already said, both theories have to explain the evidence. However, in this case, the Bible was indisputably written before anyone Mt Everest so finding evidence the tops of mountains were once underwater was predicted before the evidence was found.

I can already see the evolutionists rolling their eyes as they read this. I would consider this a very successful prediction – made millennia before being confirmed – but I doubt critics will see it the same way. In spite of what you've always heard, many skeptics don't go wherever the evidence leads them. Instead, they only see what they want to see and they refuse to see this as a successful prediction. Oh well.

What we need are predictions that are based on creationist assumptions and are not the same as predictions made by secular theories. Here's one for you to consider:

In 1984, PhD scientist, Dr. Russell Humphreys, published his predictions of the strengths of the magnetic fields of both Uranus and Neptune. His prediction was specifically borne out of his belief in creation. In his own words (source):

“I made the predictions on the basis of my hypotheses that (A) the raw material of creation was water (based on II Peter 3:5, "the earth was formed out of water and by water"), and (B) at the instant God created the water molecules, the spins of the hydrogen nuclei were all pointing in a particular direction. The tiny magnetic fields of so many nuclei would all add up to a large magnetic field. By the ordinary laws of physics, the spins of the nuclei would lose their alignment within seconds, but the large magnetic field would preserve itself by causing an electric current to circulate in the interior of each planet. By the same laws, the currents and fields would preserve themselves with only minor losses, as God rapidly transformed the water into other materials. After that, the currents and fields would decay due to electrical resistance over thousands of years. Not all creationists agree with my hypothesis that the original material was water, but all agree that once a magnetic field existed, it would decay over time.”

What's more, his predictions were very different than the secular, dynamo theory predictions. Not just a little different but different on an order of magnitude.

In 1986, when Voyager II passed Uranus, we learned that Humphreys' prediction was correct and the dynamo theory prediction was wrong. In 1989, Voyager II passed Neptune and, again, Humphreys was proven right and all other predictions were wrong.

Humphreys made his predictions in 1984. They were verified in 1986 & 1989. TalkOrigins wrote their article asking for successful predictions in 1992. They either had not heard of these successful predictions, heard of them and didn't consider them to be successful predictions, or heard of them and ignored them hoping that no one else ever hears about them. I'll let my readers decide which is most likely the case.

Related articles:

Failed Predictions of Evolutionary Theories

So tell me again how evolution could be falsified?

Wouldn't there have been a Grand Canyon on every continent?

Answering TalkOrigins “Frequently asked but never answered questions”: Part 1

TalkOrigins (TO) is an online resource whose subtitle describes itself as “exploring the creation/evolution controversy.” That may sound neutral to a casual clicker but the site is squarely pro-evolution. It's a sort of apologetics site for evolutionists.

Anyway, in their archive is an article titled, FABNAQ (Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions). I've said before how titles like this annoy me. It's not quite as bad as saying, “Questions no creationist can answer,” but it's certainly disingenuous because I guarantee you there are at least a dozen rebuttals to this very article posted elsewhere online. Many of these questions were asked an answered hundreds of times even before TO wrote its article. In other words, all of these questions have been asked and answered so there's nothing sensational about them. Headlines like this are a cheap gimmick used to make the article seem to have more weight than it truly does. Now, even though these questions have been answered over and over, they are still being asked. And since I need something to blog about, I thought I'd write a series giving my own responses.

Before getting into the list, let me preface my response with a few points. Truth is not affected by my understanding of it. If something is true, then it's true whether or not I believe it. It's true whether or not I understand it. And my ability or inability to answer a question on a subject has no bearing on whether or not the subject is true. Some subjects are complicated and no one is an expert in everything so if an unbeliever asks a believer a question he can't answer, it's not necessarily evidence of anything.

Having said that, I wonder what is the point of TO asking these questions? They don't really say. I guess they intend them to have a “gotcha” effect on creationists but, as I've said, we shouldn't feel defeated if we can't answer every one of them. However, what happens if I do answer them? I mean, I intend to answer all of them in my series and, if I do, does it mean creation is true? Will the people at TO become creationists? Obviously, that wouldn't be the case. TO isn't sincerely looking for answers to these questions. Rather, they're trying to embarrass creationists. They want us to be uncomfortable and perhaps begin to doubt some of the things we believe. Like I said, it's a gimmick.

There are 12 questions in the article. Further, several of the questions have sub-questions. It's kind of odd because, in some cases, the sub-questions seem unrelated to the main question; why didn't they just make those a separate question? Regardless, I'd like to cover 2-3 questions per post so as to not make this too long of a series. The first question has five sub-questions, making six questions in all. Considering I've already devoted a few paragraphs to my opening remarks, I'll only Question #1 and its sub-questions in this post. It's still going to be a bit long so I apologize in advance.

Without further ado, let's get started.

1. Is there any reason to believe in your theory rather than some other version of creationism?

As I read this question, I took special note that TO is asking why one version of creationism (presumably, young earth creationism) should be believed over any other version. Since we're only comparing versions of creationism, I understand that to mean why should a Christian believe my interpretation over some other interpretation (like the Gap theory or Day Age theory).

Biblically speaking, I believe the young-earth position is the most obvious meaning of the text. The “days” consisting of “evening and morning” in Genesis 1, the “six days” of creation mentioned in Exodus 20:11, the numerous and detailed genealogies throughout the Old and New Testaments, all attest to a sudden, recent creation. II Peter 1:20 says, “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.” In other words, there is no “hidden meaning” to the Bible. The plain meaning is usually the intended meaning. So when Exodus says, “in six days the LORD created the heavens and the earth,” there should be no twisting of the words to explain why “six days” really means “billions of years.”

Further reading:

Does “And God Said” Mean God Didn't Do?

How Long Were the Days in Genesis?

Five Reasons Why I Reject Theistic Evolution: Part 1

1a. If you believe that some animals -- for example, dinosaurs -- were not saved on the Ark, explain why you believe the Bible is incorrect.

This is an example of what I was saying – some of the sub-questions seem unrelated to the main question. //RKBentley scratches his head// I personally don't believe there were any terrestrial kinds omitted from representation on the Ark so maybe I don't have to answer this question. But how boring would that be?

I've read second hand quotes of Christians supposedly saying that dinosaurs are extinct because they were too big to fit on the Ark. However, it's only from critics that I hear quotes like these. I can't find any sources of creationists making such a claim. Maybe some exist (it's a big world wide web and I haven't gotten to it all yet) but they must be such a tiny minority that I would call them, “fringe.” I suspect, instead, that this is a straw man – fictitious comments invented by skeptics and attributed to creationists in order to make them sound foolish.

There were dinosaur kinds on the Ark. Full stop.

Related articles:

Were there Fish on the Ark?

Could All of the Animals Fit on the Ark?
Koalas on the Ark

1b. Why are many Christians evolutionists?

This is such an irrelevant question that I wonder why it would be included in a list of frequently asked questions. I could ask why some people believe in a flat earth but what would it prove? It's as I've already said: if something is true, it's true regardless of whoever believes it. Suggesting that evolution might be true because some Christians believe it has about the same merit of me suggesting creation is true because Newton believed it.

Yet even so, I'll tell you why there are many Christians who are evolutionists: They've been told over and over again that “evolution is a fact.” They've been told lies like, “every field of science supports evolution” or “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” We have an entire generation of people taught in public schools where evolution is presented as the only, scientific model and teachers are prohibited by court decision from even telling kids to be open minded about it. Creationists are mocked and ridiculed by academia, the scientific community, celebrities, and the media. We are called, “science deniers,” “flat-earthers,” “scientifically illiterate,” and many other names too impolite to print here.

So, yes, some people have been shamed or indoctrinated into believing evolution. It doesn't mean anything.

Related articles:

Evolution and Christianity make strange bedfellows

Do the Heavens Declare His Glory?
Why I Say Evolution is Not Compatible with the Bible

1c. If you are a young-earth creationist: Why are many creationists old-earth creationists?

1d. If you are a young-life creationist: Why are many creationists old-life creationists?

My answers to both of these points are essentially the same so I'll answer them both at once. The questions are completely irrelevant to the debate. Again, I could ask, “If you believe the earth is a globe, why do other people believe the earth is flat?” Does it prove anything? Is it evidence of either theory?

The reasons some Christians believe in an old earth/life are the same reasons some Christians believe in evolution. They've been told the “science is settled.” They've been convinced that the things they were told in school must be true so they ignore the plain meaning of the Bible and twist the words to make them mean something completely different.

Well meaning Christians invent fanciful interpretations of Scripture in an attempt to make the Bible seem compatible with “science.” It's bad hermeneutics being used to agree with a bad theory.

Related articles:

Augustine was a Young-Earth Creationist!

Is God a Deceiver?

1e. Some people say that scientific creationism does a disservice to Christianity by holding Christianity up to ridicule. How would you answer that charge?

I've been told this personally, many times. I'm not sure what answer the critics are expecting. If creation is true, then what else am I to do? I will speak the truth and bear the ridicule, taking comfort in the knowledge that the same One who spoke the universe into existence has also promised me an eternal reward if I am persecuted for His sake (Matthew 5:11-12)

John 6:60,66-68 says, Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?... From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

The truth is the truth and sometimes people don't want to hear it. Jesus spoke the truth and some people stopped following Him because of it. What is the solution? Do I tell a lie so that my message sounds more appealing? Do I replace the God of the Bible with a moron of a god who is indistinguishable from dumb luck? Should the gospel be that you don't have to believe the Bible – just believe in Jesus? No thank you. No thank you. And again, no thank you.

Related articles:

Are Creationists an Embarrassment?

Jesus wasn't plan B

Genesis 2:15-17, “And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

This passage has been a puzzle to many Christians and the subject of much criticism from unbelievers. The question often asked is why would an all-knowing God put the Tree in the Garden if He knew Adam would disobey and bring the Curse on all of creation? If there were no tree, Adam could not have eaten of it so would not have sinned by disobeying God. No tree means no Fall, no Curse, and no history of death in the world. In other words, if God knows everything, why didn't He just not put the tree in the garden and spare the world generations of misery?

Critics sometimes exaggerate the dilemma, hoping to raise doubt on the omniscience of God or the plausibility of the Bible. Such criticism could have a chilling effect on the gospel. It tries to make it look like God made a mistake and then had to come up with the cross as a way to fix it. Jesus was a sort of “plan B.”

There are a few bad assumptions behind this criticism. First, it's completely non sequitur as an argument for atheism. I'm not sure exactly how it follows that, because people die, there can be no God. You could try to make a case that He's not a loving God or that He's not the God of the Bible but there's no reason we must necessarily conclude that death means there's no God. It goes back to a point I made a few months back: people have a false idea of how God should act and, when they can't find a god that acts they way, they conclude there must be no god at all.

The other flaw in this criticism is the assumption that eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was the only sin Adam could have committed. Removing the tree does not necessarily mean Adam could no longer sin. Adam still had free will and so could have disobeyed God in other ways. For example, God also commanded Adam and Eve to multiply; Adam could have refused. We have to ask if it is even possible for God to create a creature with free will but not the ability to choose to disobey Him? It's sort of like asking if God could create a square circle.

I certainly can't claim to completely understand God. Indeed, if a finite, simple man like me could completely understand Him, He wouldn't be a very big God. But after having thought about this and looking into His word, I think I have an inkling of why things are they way they are.

We like to say that God can do anything. Of course, there are things even God can't do. God cannot lie, for example. He cannot even be wrong. And here is another very important thing – God cannot stop being God. He will always be the Infinite One, the Eternal One, the Perfect One. Logically speaking, it can be no other way.

Isaiah 46:9-11 says, “Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executes my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.”

Like this passages says, there cannot be anyone like God. In logic, there is an interesting paradox called the Irresistible Force Paradox. Essentially it says that irresistible force and an immovable object cannot exist simultaneously. One must yield to the other. The same is true for God. Not only must there be only one supreme power, He must also have supreme authority. You cannot have 2 beings with free will unless the will of one them yields to the other. Think about it – what would happen if one god says, “this will be blue” and the other says, “no, this will not be blue”? One of them must yield to the other.

When God made man, He could have made us like robots who only can do what He programmed us to do. That isn't what God wanted. He wanted someone with whom He could have fellowship - someone who would have emotions and reason similar to His. So, He created in His image. Yet, even though we are like God, we cannot be just like God. God wanted us to have fellowship with Him. He created us with free will and the ability to genuinely love Him. But by giving us free will, it was inevitable that we would disobey him. If we have free will, there will come a point that what a man wants will conflict with what God wants. Obviously, God would have known all this.

God is love (1 John 4:7-8). Because of His perfect love, He desired an object to love. However, His perfect justice would not allow Him to suffer the disobedience of His creation. So when He purposed to create us, He simultaneously would have had a plan to reconcile us to Himself again, once we disobeyed Him. His plan was the cross!

Revelation 13:8 refers to Jesus as, “The Lamb, slain from the foundation of the world.” In dutiful obedience to the Father, Jesus created the entire universe and shaped man with His own hands, knowing that the cost would be His own blood. It's overwhelming to think about it. It reminds me of a moving passage from that famous hymn:

And when I think of God, His Son not sparing
Sent Him to die, I scarce can take it in
That on the Cross, my burden gladly bearing
He bled and died to take away my sin

God didn't make a mistake. He didn't create us without realizing the cost. Jesus wasn't plan B. He was always the plan!