But sanctify the Lord God in your heart and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear.

Posted By saintbenaiah

This past Tuesday night I watched the “debate” between Ken Ham, founder of Answers in Genesis, and Bill Nye, television personality and comedian. I placed “debate” in parentheses because the event was not really a debate but a co-presentation of views. Bill Nye argued against the world being created by God and against the Bible and Ken Ham defended creation science as a legitimate way to understand the world. This article is just my brief assessment of that presentation.

First, while I think Ken Ham presented a cogent case for creation science, especially in his main presentation, I think he could have done more and been more aggressive in the shorter answers. But maybe that is not his style, I don’t know. Nevertheless, there were openings that Nye left that Ham did not fully exploit.

Second, from the start, Bill Nye used emotive and pejorative language to stealthily attack Mr. Ham and creation science. For instance, he constantly described creation science as “Mr. Ham’s view” but his own view as “mainstream science.” He would stretch out his hands toward the outside of the building, and talk about the outside world of mainstream science, as if the creation museum and creation science were divorced from both science and reality. Even when he presented a slide stating the proposition under debate, “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern, scientific era?” his slide called it “Ken Ham’s creation model.” The implication is that there are many creation models and that they are all different because they are not science. Real science, on the other hand, according to Nye, is unified in adoption of evolution because there is no disagreement about it.


Read the rest here...

Posted By saintbenaiah

In the debate between creation science and evolution, the real problem is not that creationists reject science, it is that evolutionists reject the evidence of the Bible.  They not only reject the Bible, but they reject any possibility of the supernatural whatsoever.  Though they aver that they are objective, in actuality anything that conflicts with their materialistic world view is rejected or shrugged off.

 For instance, Ken Ham introduced a piece of evidence for Bill Nye that he did not really touch.  He made one attempt, but then spoke of it no more.  Ham spoke of a piece of wood that was discovered entombed in a basalt flow 70 feet down.  Samples of the rock and wood were sent to a lab to be dated.  The rock was dated to 45 million years old but the wood was dated to 45,000 years old.  Two widely divergent dates in the same layer.

 Nye tried to suggest that the 45 million old rock slid on top of the wood.  But Ham pointed out that the wood was found encased in the rock, not under it.  Nye never answered this again.  Never attempted to answer it.  He just shrugged.  These examples could be multiplied many times.

 In attempting to defend Big Science dating methods, Nye unwittingly undercut himself by admitting that their predictions about the age of asteroids were incorrect.  They initially predicted that there would be a wider spread between the age of the asteroids, but it was discovered that the ages were actually quite close together, which Nye described as a “mystery.”  These dates are not a problem for creation scientists, but they are for evolutionists.


Read the rest here...

Posted By saintbenaiah


Paleontologists claim they have recently found the oldest monkey and ape fossils in the world in Tanzania. The first fossil, found in 2011, is said to represent a Nsungwepithecus, an Old World monkey, and its remains consist of one partial jawbone and one molar tooth. In 2012, Rukwapithecus was also discovered, consisting of a partial jawbone and four teeth. 

While it is claimed that these finds offer proof that the monkeys and apes had already diverged 25 million years ago, the articles note that "the fossils themselves are only fragments" (NBC News). Yet in a Science News article on the subject, New York anthropologist Terry Harrison isn't even sure that the fragments for Nsungwepithecus are not those of a pig or a peccary (Science News). More fossils are needed, he said, to tell whether it is even a primate. 

If the experts cannot even tell whether the fossils are pig or primate, how can they tell us they know it is proof of evolution?


Eric L. Padgett


Posted By saintbenaiah

This is not a political blog, though I will sometimes venture into that area when the subject matter overlaps with Christian apologetics and Christian worldview issues.  This past week that seems to have occurred. 

Rick Perry was the target of a liberal snare.  A Mom--I don't know whether she was working alone or was with the group that was sent to heckle him--used her son to try and provoke Perry into saying something that would slow his momentum, or, ideally, completely derail his presidential campaign.  The mother, through her young son, asked Perry how old the earth was.  Perry answered that he did not know but that it was very old.  This was a political answer, but technically it was true.  None of us know exactly how old the earth is (though we have pretty good idea) and it is very old (6,000 years is pretty old to me).  But this did not satisfy the Mom because she was out to cause trouble for the governor. 

So she asked a second question about evolution.  Perry, by this time, obviously understood what was going on here, so he very deftly bent down to the level of the boy and told him that in Texas they taught both evolution and creation so that individuals could draw their own conclusions.  For this young child, this should have presented a pretty stark contrast between the two, Rick Perry and his Mom.  She was hiding behind her son, projecting her issue onto him, while Perry spoke on the young man's level inspiring him to be free to make up his own mind on the matter after examining all the evidence. 

Obviously, the mother saw her designs backfiring on her and she tried to take one last emotional shot:  "Ask him why he doesn't believe in science."  This probably made her feel good, or at least feel better, since her first attempts were thwarted, but it betrays her ignorance of the issues.  Perry, however, recognizing his victory and the futility of further discussion, strode away to greet the rest of the crowd.  

To the liberal "mind", evolution is science.  However, darwinian evolution does not even begin the to meet the rigid requirements of being observable, testable, and repeatable.  In fact, evolution requires that science be discarded.  In order to believe this humanistic evolutionary scenario, we must first believe that something came from nothing and then we must believe that well established laws of thermodynamics, laws by the way that are observable, testable, and repeatable are violated by order being introduced into a closed system. 

The purpose of this post is not to argue against evolution, however, it is to draw attention to the attitudes of many in our culture toward those who espouse a Christian worldview.  These are considered "unscientiic."  They are considered dangerous. In a similar manner, Michelle Bachmann, has been branded by the liberal Huffpost as "controversial" simply because she professes Christianity.  

While I do not share either Bachmann or Perry's particular theology, it is certainly sad that this country, founded on Judeao-Christian values, has now been so taken over by the left that politicians who espouse these ancient values are vilified by the public media.  We applaud Mr. Perry, not only for his deft handling of this situation but also in taking a public stand for the truth.

Eric L. Padgett




User Profile

Recent Entries
Latest Comments