Does Science Argue for or against God?

Why are we here? Literally. The latest science says we shouldn’t be. It says that the chance life exists at all is less than zero. So, is science the greatest threat to the idea of Intelligent Design or is science its greatest advocate? Best-selling author and lecturer, Eric Metaxas, poses this intriguing question and comes up with a very unexpected and challenging answer.

This World is Not My Home

I remember singing this song many a time while attending church. Since our church was A Cappella, it sounded just like this.

No really, it did!

Creation 2015 Family Superconference

CREATION2015.com

Join us Monday 13 July–Friday 17 July 2015 for 5 days of facts, fellowship, food and fun on the beach at Springmaid Beach Resort.

• An event the whole family will enjoy
• Fantastic children’s program
• 22 must see presentations
• Fellowship and fun on the beach on 27 acres
• Spacious rooms all with balconies and sea views
• 3 meals per day (buffet style)
• Many onsite activities to choose from

Boy Came Back from Heaven?

by Dave Miller, Ph.D. of Apologetics Press

It was 2004 when 6-year-old Alex Malarkey was plunged into a coma by injuries sustained in a car accident. After waking two months later, he claimed he had seen angels who took him to heaven to meet Jesus. Six years later, Tyndale published a book by the boy, co-authored with his father, titled The Boy Who Came Back from Heaven, which became an instant bestseller, even spawning a documentary DVD. Now, at the age of 16, Alex has retracted his claims and, thankfully, is urging people to return to the Bible for the only reliable source for information on the afterlife (Zylstra, 2015).

Manmade religion typically relies heavily on subjective experience that the perpetrators expect people to accept based solely on personal “testimony.” However, such an approach to arriving at truth is in stark contrast with Bible teaching. God has always insisted that humans must weigh the evidence and draw only those conclusions warranted by that evidence (Miller, 2011). When God revealed new information, He never expected anyone to merely accept the word of another—even a prophet from God—without confirmation by an undeniable miraculous sign that demonstrates divine authenticity (John 10:37; see Miller, 2003a).

What’s more, the Bible speaks definitively concerning the afterlife. Since the Bible can be shown to be the inspired, infallible Word of God (Butt, 2007), it can be relied on to provide accurate information regarding life after death. It does not answer all our questions, but it gives sufficient information by which one can know with certainty the general parameters of life beyond the grave. The Bible teaches that for all individuals who died in Bible history, in every case, a miracle was necessary to restore the separated spirit of the individual to the body. This return of a person’s spirit constituted a resurrection. But miracles served a very specific purpose in Bible times—a purpose no longer needed (Miller, 2003a). Since God has chosen not to work miracles today (1 Corinthians 13:8-11; Ephesians 4:8-13), and no resurrections will occur until the general resurrection (John 5:25-29; Luke 14:14; 1 Corinthians 15:12ff.), there is no such thing as an “out-of-body experience” (for more discussion, read Miller, 2013).

Further, the Bible lays out a fairly complete treatment of afterlife (see Miller, 2003b). Briefly, God gives people this life on Earth to prepare their spirits for their eternal abode. When a person dies, his or her body goes into the grave, while the conscious spirit enters the hadean realm to await the final Judgment. At the Second Coming of Christ, all spirits will come forth from hades and be resurrected in immortal bodies. All will then face God in judgment, receive the pronouncement of eternal sentence, and then be consigned to heaven or hell for eternity (read Luke 16:19-31; cf. Miller, 2003b).

As usual, people could spare themselves a lot of hype and sensationalism that ends in embarrassment, disillusion, and resentment if they would simply consult the sure Word of God and order their thinking and life according to its precepts.

For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account (Hebrews 4:12-13).

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so (Acts 17:11, emp. added).

REFERENCES

Butt, Kyle (2007), Behold! The Word of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Miller, Dave (2003a), “Modern-Day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation–EXTENDED VERSION,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1399.

Miller, Dave (2003b), “One Second After Death,” Apologetics Press, https://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1188&topic=74.

Miller, Dave (2011), “Is Christianity Logical? Parts 1&2,” Reason & Revelation, 31[6]:50-52,56-59; 31[7]:62-64,68-71, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=977.

Miller, Dave (2013), “What About ‘Out-of-Body Experiences’?” Apologetics Press, https://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=4694&topic=74.

Zylstra, Sarah Eekhoff (2015), “The ‘Boy Who Came Back from Heaven’ Retracts Story,” Christianity Today, January 15, http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2015/january/boy-who-came-back-from-heaven-retraction.html?paging=off.

The Cosmological Argument: Richard Dawkins vs William Lane Craig

William Lane Craig tackles atheist Richard Dawkins and his objection against the cosmological argument. Despite Craig’s refutation of Dawkins’ objections, Dawkins has still not responded and he continues to run from any type of one-on-one debate with Craig. This video is part of the ‘The God Delusion’ playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list…

Living Fossils (A Problem for Evolution)

Ancient shark caught by fishing trawler

Fish was five-feet long

VICTORIA, Au

The rare catch is a frilled shark, a species more than 80 million years old. “We couldn’t find a fisherman who had ever seen one before,” South East Trawl Fishing Association member Simon Boag told Newscom.au.

The Commonwealth of Scientific and Industrial Research explained the shark was caught by a fishing trawler off the coast of Australia.

“It looks like it’s from another time,” Boag continued.

The ‘living fossil’ looks more like an eel until you see the 300 teeth tightly packed into 25 rows. “Once you’re in that mouth, you’re not coming out.”

The creepy creature is normally found at depths of 1500 meters, and is not considered a danger to the public.

Why is this a problem for evolution?

First, if this is an 80 million year old species, why has it not changed? Evolution states that species are always changing and evolving into better species. This animal should have never been discovered.

Second, how did they come up with a date of 80 million years? Perhaps it’s closer to say, oh 6,000 years as the Bible states.

Third, it creates a severe problem for the theory of evolution itself. Dr. Werner stated to Creation.com “If you whole-heartedly believe in a theory, you will always be able to sustain that belief—even in the face of contradictory evidence—by adding a rescue hypothesis to that theory. For example, if a scientist believes in evolution and sees fossils that look like modern organisms at the dinosaur digs, he/she might invent an hypothesis to ‘explain’ living fossils this way: ‘Yes I believe that animals have changed greatly over time (evolution), but some animals and plants were so well adapted to the environment that they did not need to change. So I am not bothered at all by living fossils.’ This added hypothesis says that some animals did not evolve. But if a theory can be so flexible, adding hypotheses that predict the opposite of your main theory, one could never disprove the theory. The theory then becomes unsinkable, and an unsinkable theory is not science.” (Emphasis added)