Blogs 4 Brownback

May 31, 2007

Answers in Genesis Answers the Protests

Filed under: Faith,Family,Science — Sisyphus @ 5:37 am

Our friends have a helpful retort for those protesters addicted to the narcotic of Darwinism: put down the placard, and pick up a Bible:

We all have the same facts. We live on the same earth, we look at the same rocks and fossils and so on. How we interpret those facts is directly influenced by our presuppositions. If we start out with a naturalistic presupposition, then we will interpret the facts devoid of God. If we start out with a biblical presupposition, we will see the facts as including the Creator’s work.

Since we were not there in the beginning, shouldn’t we rely on the eyewitness account of the One who was there instead of relying on the fallible reasoning of mankind who wasn’t there? We should rely on God’s accurate historical record found in the book of Genesis. From this starting point, we can properly interpret the evidence to explain how the universe was created.

You see, this is really an example of two worldviews at war.

Humanistic: Something popped into existence from nothing and exploded; Stars and planets then allegedly formed; from pond scum, life arose from non-life; this original life form evolved into more and more complex things by adding useful information into the genome for hair, eyes, lungs, etc. to, at least for now, arrive at man; and when you die, there is nothing and nothing mattered—even protesting! [Final authority: autonomous human’s ideas]

Christian: God created everything perfect, but man ruined it with sin (rejecting God’s authority), so death and suffering came into the world, and the Curse is now in effect; since death was the punishment for sin, a perfect sacrifice was needed, and Christ, who is God and loved us enough to give Himself, came down to die in our place to offer the gift of eternal life with a good God who loves us. He will create a new heaven and new earth, and the curse will be removed. [Final authority: God and His Word]

Read the whole thing. Anything I could add would only be redundant. This essay is astounding, and if it doesn’t convert several of you from atheism to Christianity, nothing will.

30 Comments »

  1. “Anything I could add would only be redundant.”

    …and completely devoid of rational thought.

    “[Final authority: autonomous human’s ideas]”

    No, Final Authority: Evidence.

    “shouldn’t we rely on the eyewitness account of the One who was there instead of relying on the fallible reasoning of mankind who wasn’t there?”

    Sure, I’ll wait until he tells me directly, instead of relying on the fallible people who wrote those stories down.

    Comment by rob — May 31, 2007 @ 8:57 am | Reply

  2. “No, Final Authority: Evidence.”

    How you interpret the evidence is a different question, rob.

    “Sure, I’ll wait until he tells me directly, instead of relying on the fallible people who wrote those stories down.”

    God is in the stories. He’s probably not going to repeat Himself for you until Judgment Day. Maybe I’m wrong; it is up to Him, after all. But I wouldn’t get my hopes up if I were you, rob.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 31, 2007 @ 9:00 am | Reply

  3. The AiG piece is outstanding. It should be required reading for the treefrogs around here. If they can understand all the big words, that is.

    Here’s what it comes down to: whom do you trust more,

    a). the omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe

    or

    b). some nerd with a Bunsen burner like rob?

    When you put it like that, I think most people are going to choose a).

    Comment by DPS — May 31, 2007 @ 10:30 am | Reply

  4. And how do we know that the Genesis account is reliable? How do we know that it was not written by men? (Or was inspired by a deity, if you prefer.)

    What about all the other creation stories of other religions? How do we know they are less reliable than Genesis?

    Comment by Ironwolf — May 31, 2007 @ 11:07 am | Reply

  5. “What about all the other creation stories of other religions?”

    Why go that far? What about the other creation stories in Genesis. Was Eve created out of Adam’s rib after God made the animals, or was she created at the same time?

    Comment by rob — May 31, 2007 @ 11:27 am | Reply

  6. Rob,

    Well the question about other religions was really for extra credit.

    Comment by Ironwolf — May 31, 2007 @ 11:33 am | Reply

  7. Okay, I get it. This entire blog is a parody.

    It makes far more sense when you read it that way.

    Once you get the joke, it’s pretty hilarious. I applaud your effort. Thank you!

    Comment by MikeM — May 31, 2007 @ 11:33 am | Reply

  8. I apologize in advance if I am not succinct or articulate in my comments. I just don’t see the neccesity for such heated debates over what scientists say they observe and speculate vs. what faithful Christians believe. Also, why can’t some people on either side integrate or tolerate the other’s choices in this. On the theory of evolution, on the laws of physics, on the many astrological observations, on geology, whatever other sciences are debated, people are curious about the cause and effect of nature. We will forever attempt to explain the observations and make assumptions based on them. Someday those assumptions may have to change. Our sphere of knowledge as human beings changes all the time, from the moment we became conscious people, before or after original sin. You don’t have to take the scientists’ word as is, but at the same time, most of us probably have not studied or observed what they have because we did not dedicate our lives to finding out. I mean, on a day to day basis, those things don’t even matter. Isn’t it more important that we are good & decent to one another, be loving and forgiving, help those in need, etc. However, the knowledge and speculations made by scientists, just seems to match the observations I see as well so I will believe them, for now. If it doesn’t match with your observations that is fine, don’t believe them. But don’t be blinded by preconceived notions, that’s all.

    Those “truths” regarding the laws of nature, and how God created the world don’t even matter in the grand scheme of things. That’s just the way the world is, as God designed it. If you care to find out the details, then do it whatever way you think is right.

    This next part is just what I think but would God really be angry with us if we could not understand fully the complexities in which He created the world and set things in motion. I mean, we kind of have to assume that there will always be an infinite amount of “things” that exist, that will be indefinable and unknowable by science or observations. But it doesn’t hurt to try and find out about what we can see unless it leads us to specific decisions that damage our relationship with God.

    So until I die and am either sent to Hell or Heaven (hopefully Heaven), until God or his angelic messengers tell me otherwise, I will have to take all of man’s words, scientists or written in the Bible, with a grain of salt. I know someone will say the Bible was (what do you call it?) divinely inspired? Yes I understand that and believe it as well but I cannot shake my belief that man is fallible. Even those divinely inspired can be tempted, for a whole slew of reasons we cannot quite know now, they could’ve written something other than the word of God.

    Comment by Q — May 31, 2007 @ 12:25 pm | Reply

  9. “And how do we know that the Genesis account is reliable? How do we know that it was not written by men? (Or was inspired by a deity, if you prefer.)”

    Because it’s the Word of God, treefrog. Why can’t you understand that?

    “What about all the other creation stories of other religions? How do we know they are less reliable than Genesis?”

    Because they were written by men who wished to make themselves God. They are not the Word. They are, at best, a hodgepodge of hedgerow superstitions and humdrum heathen fallacies. If you can’t tell the difference between the Word of God and some myth about human sacrifice that a drunken Celt invented in a swamp in Czechoslovakia 2500 years ago, there’s little hope for you.

    “I apologize in advance if I am not succinct or articulate in my comments.”

    It’s alright, no one gets graded around here. 🙂

    “Those “truths” regarding the laws of nature, and how God created the world don’t even matter in the grand scheme of things. That’s just the way the world is, as God designed it. If you care to find out the details, then do it whatever way you think is right.”

    Fair enough.

    “This next part is just what I think but would God really be angry with us if we could not understand fully the complexities in which He created the world and set things in motion.”

    I agree. That’s why He laid them out for us, in Scripture.

    “So until I die and am either sent to Hell or Heaven (hopefully Heaven), until God or his angelic messengers tell me otherwise, I will have to take all of man’s words, scientists or written in the Bible, with a grain of salt.”

    You sadden me.

    “Even those divinely inspired can be tempted, for a whole slew of reasons we cannot quite know now, they could’ve written something other than the word of God.”

    God smote people left and right back in those days. He was a ferocious editor. Anyone who tried to pull a stunt like that would’ve been very, very sorry. The Wrath of the Lord is not a thing to be trifled with. Any reader of the Old Testament will agree with me there.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 31, 2007 @ 1:25 pm | Reply

  10. if it doesn’t convert several of you from atheism to Christianity, nothing will…

    Because they were written by men who wished to make themselves God. They are not the Word. They are, at best, a hodgepodge of hedgerow superstitions and humdrum heathen fallacies. If you can’t tell the difference between the Word of God and some myth about human sacrifice that a drunken Celt invented in a swamp in Czechoslovakia 2500 years ago, there’s little hope for you.

    Yep, nothing will and no, I can’t. I really, really hope this site is a paradoy. For all the insanity of its content, it’s really well written. I could be very entertained if I wern’t so horrified. Why I feel compelled to leave a comment I have no idea – I supposed it’s like applauding a catastrophic train wreck for the special effects.

    Comment by EnoNomi — May 31, 2007 @ 1:44 pm | Reply

  11. Ironwolf: “And how do we know that the Genesis account is reliable? How do we know that it was not written by men? (Or was inspired by a deity, if you prefer.)”

    Sisyphus: “Because it’s the Word of God, treefrog. Why can’t you understand that?”

    Um… Because, “We know it was not written by men” because “It’s the Word of God, treefrog,” is circular reasoning?

    And also ad hominem.

    Comment by Ironwolf — May 31, 2007 @ 1:55 pm | Reply

  12. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5202233959062854326&q=%22steve+carell%22+stephen+colbert

    here’s a humorous version of circular reasoning

    Comment by mickey — May 31, 2007 @ 2:29 pm | Reply

  13. “Um… Because, “We know it was not written by men” because “It’s the Word of God, treefrog,” is circular reasoning?

    And also ad hominem.”

    Your rules of logic are like your rules of science- flawed, self-serving, and skewed toward secularist and atheist results.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 31, 2007 @ 2:30 pm | Reply

  14. Stephen Colbert is evil, mickey. He makes fun of Jesus.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 31, 2007 @ 2:37 pm | Reply

  15. Presuppositions are everything! Conservative Christianity as Postmodern Relativism! I love it!

    Yeesh.

    Comment by Philo — June 1, 2007 @ 10:21 am | Reply

  16. Whatever THAT means, Philo.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 1, 2007 @ 11:15 am | Reply

  17. DARWIN WAS A LIAR EVOLUTION IS A CROCK VIOTE BROWNAHCK!!! VOTE BROWNAHCK!!! VOTE BROWNABHCK!!

    Comment by Jack Fremont — June 1, 2007 @ 1:18 pm | Reply

  18. Quick question Sisyphus – if God was the author of our Bible, which your comments seem to suggest, why would God write in educated doctor’s Greek for the gospel of Luke (+Acts of the Apostles), and then Greek heavily influenced by Aramaic (‘Talitha koum!’ and all that) in the gospel of Mark?

    Comment by koine — June 1, 2007 @ 3:36 pm | Reply

  19. Quick question Sisyphus – if God was the author of our Bible, which your comments seem to suggest, why would God write in educated doctor’s Greek for the gospel of Luke (+Acts of the Apostles), and then Greek heavily influenced by Aramaic (’Talitha koum!’ and all that) in the gospel of Mark?”

    He wrote them through human agency. Besides, koine Greek was the scholarly language of the Roman Empire, ensuring wider dissemination. Aramaic was the language of a provincial backwater. As far as I know, the only Gospel originally written in Aramaic was Matthew.

    Emoi ge dokei.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 1, 2007 @ 3:51 pm | Reply

  20. What does “emoi ge dokei” mean, Sisyphus?

    Comment by Marcia P. — June 2, 2007 @ 9:06 am | Reply

  21. So what is your opinion of Islamic creationism or Hindu creationism?

    Comment by Michael Ejercito — June 2, 2007 @ 9:27 am | Reply

  22. Deviltry, satanry and beelzabobitude!

    Comment by ec1009 — June 2, 2007 @ 10:18 am | Reply

  23. “Emoi ge dokei” is Ancient Greek for “To me, at least, it seems best.”

    Islam and Hinduism are varying denominations of Satanism if you ask me, Michael.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 2, 2007 @ 10:41 am | Reply

  24. That should have been beelzabobitudity. I’m lost without spellcheck.

    Comment by ec1009 — June 2, 2007 @ 12:20 pm | Reply

  25. “DARWIN WAS A LIAR EVOLUTION IS A CROCK”

    Tell that to the former Dover, PA school board. Eighteen months ago these creationist clowns got their asses blown back to the dark ages where they belong. The really cool thing about it was that they brought down on themselves a lawsuit that turned out to be a precedent setting case, driving a stake through the heart of the ID movement.

    You guys can dress it up any way you like, but it will always be exposed for what it is: Fundamentalist Christianity, an anachronistic worldview that will not be forced onto the rest of us. The further we travel down the road of knowledge in this age of enlightenment, the less viable your biblical literalism becomes.

    Cling to it if you must, but all efforts to foist it upon those who have no use for it will fail. Why? Two reasons. First, because this is America, which contrary to your belief, was not founded as a Christian nation. Indeed, the Constitution protects us from just this sort thing being inserted into the public arena. Second, because at its root, biblical literalism is indefensible against the march toward real knowledge that science gives us.

    Long live Kitzmiller vs. Dover!

    Comment by ALyingScientist — June 3, 2007 @ 6:01 am | Reply

  26. When can we start throwing scientists into Guantanamo along with their Islamic friends?

    Comment by Marcia P. — June 3, 2007 @ 12:29 pm | Reply

  27. “When can we start throwing scientists into Guantanamo along with their Islamic friends?”

    Ignorance is bliss, eh Marcia?

    Comment by ALyingScientist — June 3, 2007 @ 5:27 pm | Reply

  28. Why are you so threatened by knowledge?

    Comment by ALyingScientist — June 3, 2007 @ 5:35 pm | Reply

  29. Why are you so threatened by God?

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 5, 2007 @ 10:22 am | Reply

  30. Definition of science: Accepting only the observable, and empiricle evidence that can be falsified.

    So you only believe in the observabel?

    a.quark into Universe=UNOBSERVABLE
    b.Abiogenesis (simple-complex)Unobservable ( crystals,snowflakes, etc. are PATTERNS without perpose, code,informational map, and abiogenesis is a hypothoses only, and can’t even explain the “HOW” it works. It is UNOBSERVABLE.
    c.Missing links are still MISSING, (archaeoptryx was only an ancient BIRD. therfore, UNOBSERVABLE.
    d.Punctuated equilibrium =Unobserable.

    In regards to the initial series of causes, you must explain the series AS A WHOLE, and be force to chose the initial cause INSIDE the series, or OUTSIDE the series.
    Also, you cannot exist and non-exist at the same time.

    Comment by Justme — May 23, 2008 @ 11:34 am | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: