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

The liberal publication "Wineskins" is suggesting we need modern day apostles (April, 2013 Rethinking Apostleship in the Churches of Christ. Apparently, these apostles will just "emerge" because they have "felt" Jesus is "calling" them. Of course, the modern day apostles will not have to perform miracles because the "traditional church of Christ interpretation" regarding this particular point, we are told, is in error. No, according to Wes Woodell, who apparently has discovered this latter-day truth, the proof of apostleship is not the ability to perform miracles but the "fruit" produced in their "life and ministry." What this is exactly we are not told. Presumably, those who feel they are apostles will tell us that their fruit is proof. 

Sometimes the arrogance of man is breathtaking. Paul, a real apostle chosen by the Lord and who received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, stated by inspiration that miracles were "truly the signs of an apostle" (II Cor. 12:12). Woodell’s response to this – "it could be we’re putting words in Paul’s mouth." Someone is, indeed, putting words in Paul’s mouth. The Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit guided the apostles into all truth (John 14:26; 16:13) and they have revealed those things to us which were revealed to them (I Cor. 2; 11:1,2; Heb. 2:1-4). They and they alone awaited for the baptism of the Holy Spirit which the Lord promised them (Acts 1:8) and which they alone received (Acts 2:1-14). Those apostles whom Jesus chose continue to sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:28). 

I have a "feeling" that Woodell will sometime soon feel that he is being called to be an apostle. Eric L. Padgett

Posted By saintbenaiah

The group called American Atheists attempted to force the state of Florida to take down a monument of the Ten Commandments from in front of the Bradford County Courthouse in the little town of Starke. The courts ruled against taking down the Ten Commandments but allowed them to place their own monument on the site. An un-named donor supplied the funds for this monument to atheism, which is the first such monument on government property. Now, right across from the display of the Ten Commandments, which commemorates our country’s historical dependence upon Judeo-Christian values and traditions, stands an appropriate and ironic symbol of their beliefs–a seat, the seat of the scornful, that is (Psalms 1:1). 

The American Atheist group attempts to deceive the American public by suggesting with quotes on this monument that this country was founded on atheistic beliefs instead of on Judeo-Christian values. It is not surprising that they attempt to deceive, given who their spiritual father is (John 8:44). The monument has inscribed on it "…the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion." This quote, from article 11 of the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, is presented devoid of any historical context.

For 300 years prior to the treaty, Muslim pirates terrorized the Barbary shipping lanes. Men and ships would be held for ransom or forced to become Muslim. While British colonies, the states had the protection of the mighty British navy. Once independent, however, America had to deal with these pirates and the easiest way was to make treaties with these Barbary Muslim states. 

The treaty was a stop-gap measure to deal with harassing Muslim attacks until a strong navy could be built. The wording in the treaty suggests only that our government was not inherently at war with Muslim states. The original Arabic version of the treaty did not even have the wording of article 11. When the treaty was renegotiated in 1805, the above text was conspicuously absent. 

It is dishonest of the atheists to take a disputed line from an obscure treaty and suggest it means more than the references to the Creator in the founding document of this country–the Declaration of Independence.


Eric L. Padgett


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




User Profile

Recent Entries
Latest Comments