Member Since: March 19, 2013


123 To page: Go
  • [1] February 19, 2015 at 12:28pm

    Blinknight, you argue like a troll. Stop relying on ad-hominem attacks and face the facts.

    For as long as science has existed, we have attempted to apply our discoveries in trial of our beliefs about the past and our origins. All such activities fall within the realm of science, but their products are very different. As I have explained above, one results in repeatable, testable knowledge, while the other results in uncertain inferences, subject to bias and debate. Only in the last hundred years have people attempted to convince the world that their products are the same, and the reason for this is clear: to spread their anti-God religion, and to justify tyranny. It is because of this institutional deception of the culture that reasonable people must now learn to distinguish between the two.

    Your summation of my argument is ridiculous. My logic and explanation was perfectly sound. Your argument should not be that forensic criminology always results in certain knowledge of the past, because that is ridiculously, obviously untrue. Instead you should argue from the standpoint of the reliability of the contradictory evidence. From there, though, we will find that our division is one of disputed authority: you trust the fallible word of man, while I trust the infallible word of God.

    However, your refusal to acknowledge obvious truths makes me wonder if you are not a paid troll, or else just zealously anti-God.

  • [1] February 18, 2015 at 4:24pm

    Oh Blinknight, when will you see reason?

    The legitimacy of forensic evidence in justice is limited by the same logical limitations of other historical sciences. The presence of the suspects fingerprints on the murder weapon lets us know, beyond the shadow of a doubt that…wait for it…the suspect’s fingerprints were found on the murder weapon.

    We INFER from the presence of the fingerprint that the suspect came in contact with the murder weapon, and further INFER that the contact included the use of the murder weapon in the act of murder.

    In the presence of contradictory evidence, a jury would have to consider the possibilities that (1) the suspect might have come in contact with the murder weapon, but not in the act of murder; (2) the suspect never came into contact with the murder weapon, but another person placed the fingerprints onto the murder weapon in order to frame him. The unlikeliness of these scenarios must be weighed against the reliability of the contradictory evidence.

    In the context of goo-to-you evolution as the cause of today’s biodiversity, there is only one eye witness account of the beginning of life in this world, and many people have found this witness to be otherwise completely reliable. We therefore reasonably consider the research that claims to prove common descent with skepticism, and find that in all cases, instead of proving common descent, the research simply assumes common descent to be true, and interprets the results accordingly.

  • [6] February 17, 2015 at 3:27pm

    Let’s assume the following: (A) Fossil One was found buried in a certain place. (B) Fossil Two was found buried further underground. (C) Fossil One and Fossil Two somewhat resemble each other, but have major differences, both aesthetically and genetically.

    That the above was discovered in nature is what you call directly observable. To conclude that Fossil One is an ancestor of Fossil Two is an inference that is based (at minimum) on the further unverifiable assumption that random mutation can produce the vast additions to both the quantity and complexity of genetic information that must have occurred during the unobserved generations between the two.

    “Similar, therefore related” is an inference.

    That evolution is historical science does not by itself denigrate evolution. Historical science has its place. But to pretend that evolution is observable, testable, repeatable is both obviously untrue and widely touted by radical evolutionists.

  • [7] February 17, 2015 at 3:15pm

    First, the theory of evolution is constantly being modified due to its predictions not panning out. Second, the “tests” to which you are referring always follow the form, “if X caused Y in the past, then we should expect to find Y in nature.” The “repetition” of this kind of test is to explore nature and see if you find Y. The problem with this is that (1) Y has never been observed to be the result of X, (2) Y is just as likely to be caused by something other than X, and (3) depending on how well Y has been defined, it may be debatable whether or not Y was actually found in the first place (as in “if random mutation caused our bodies to be as they are, then we would expect to find many useless organs in our bodies. The appendix is a useless organ, therefore random mutation must have caused our bodies to be as they are.” Only it turns out that appendixes are not useless organs, and many healthy ones were removed from peoples’ bodies due to this bad thinking caused by belief in evolution). The historical science conclusion that “Y is found in nature, therefore X caused Y” is just poor logic.

    The same logic has been used in the age of the earth. Learn to distinguish between actual confirmed knowledge and the biased application of unverifiable assumptions. Radiometric dating is heavily relied upon in aging, and yet it obviously contains several assumptions all by itself.

    Nothing in Genesis has ever been falsified by science.

  • [7] February 17, 2015 at 2:55pm

    You’ll notice the quotes I used, and also consider the context of the comment. Ham’s blog once again differentiated between observational science which, as you say, is conducted in a laboratory environment…etc. and historical science. Are both practiced in science? Yes, absolutely. And yet they are distinct, and in the context of evolution, the distinction is very relevant.

    Observational science results in independently verifiable knowledge. This is the “science” that people think about when they are told, “science tells us X”. The results of historical science are inferences about the past, based on what is observed in the present. The beliefs about the past cannot be verified with certainty, and are subject to a wide array of biases, and are always debatable. There is only one side of the evolution debate trying to shut down the debate though.

  • [4] February 17, 2015 at 2:41pm

    He is obfuscating the law of gravity, which describes what massive bodies do, and the theory of gravity, which attempts to explain why. This is another way that dishonest or uneducated evolutionists confuse laymen to believe that evolution is a scientific fact.

  • [4] February 17, 2015 at 2:34pm

    So pretending something is true that can’t be observed, tested or repeated is “science”? Your assertion that believing in billions of years and evolution is “living in reality” begs the question at hand.

    Its an unverifiable belief about our origins. That is religion. And as Dawkins has demonstrated, it is an anti-God religion.

    Responses (12) +
  • [3] February 6, 2015 at 4:47pm

    Measles is not dangerous. People used to take their kids to measles parties so they could become actually immune.

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] February 3, 2015 at 6:13pm

    “I can spot Matt Walsh’s headlines a mile away.” I said the exact same thing to my wife last week.

  • February 3, 2015 at 4:14pm

    Huffdaddy: The ultimate goal of creation is an Eternally Perfect Kingdom, populated by Eternal, Perfect, and Free People, perpetuating in joy together and with God. As I’ll explain, creating these People is the hardest thing that anyone could ever do, and meant God, Himself would have to suffer WITH each and every one of us, but also AS one of us. God knew that this ultimate goal was worth any price, and those who have tasted of it agree. I don’t fault you for finding this incredulous. I can only encourage you to search diligently for that kingdom whose treasures cannot be compared to the temporary sufferings of this world. Maybe you have experienced great suffering, and can’t imagine the kind of world that would make it worthwhile. Seek, though, and you will find.

    But why should suffering be necessary? Because it is impossible to create a person that is both perfect and free, but we must be both. It is therefore necessary that we are made imperfect, and then choose to be made perfect. For a very brief time we experience both good and evil, and this allows us to make a free and informed decision to trust the Source of All Goodness, to complete our creation, making us the People we were always meant to be, finally capable of perpetual joy forever and ever, until the very memory of our light affliction has been replaced with the glory that came forth from it.

  • [-2] February 2, 2015 at 4:10pm

    We have to spend our life on our knees thanking him? What kind of God would do that?”

    What could you thank me for if your life was spent on your knees thanking me? No kind of God would do that, because it’s ridiculous. I know you have experienced how praising something consummates your enjoyment of it. You hear a good joke, so you share it with the next person. Every good thing comes from me: every pleasure to be enjoyed in its season. To enjoy any good thing without thanksgiving is to miss out on the best part.

  • [-2] February 2, 2015 at 4:09pm

    “’How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault,” Fry continued. “It’s not right, it’s utterly, utterly evil. Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world which is so full of injustice and pain?’ That’s what I would say.”

    If the God who created you is so stupid, why should you be able to trust the reasoning ability with which He provided you? I knew when I created the world that there would be suffering, but I also knew that there was no other way to create a population of perfect creatures to fill my kingdom. Part of perfection is freedom, and another part is righteousness. If I create a righteous creature, that means I have limited the choices that he is able to make. Thus the only way to make a perfect creature is to make an imperfect creature, and let him choose to be made righteous. The suffering which is part of that process is temporary, but the joy is eternal.

    Responses (1) +
  • [-3] February 2, 2015 at 4:09pm

    “I’d say, ‘Bone cancer in children? What’s that about?’”

    Allow me to introduce you to Milo. He experienced many good things, and many evil things in his life on earth, including the pain of bone cancer before I brought him home. These temporary experiences shaped him into an utterly unique creature, and allowed him to make the free, fully informed decision to abandon sin forever before entering my kingdom. He wants you to know that he would have suffered a thousand times over for just a glimpse of the life that I’ve given him for eternity. I want to assure you that he will be laughing, singing, dancing, and generally rejoicing while you burn, should your reject your salvation on his account.

    Responses (2) +
  • [-2] January 27, 2015 at 5:59pm

    Using observational, experimental science, we observe that circumstances X leads to Y. We also observe that Y exists in the present. The inference that the Y that we observe in the present must have been caused by circumstances X is practicing historical science, a totally different set of events then when we found X leading to Y.

    One issue arises when you consider that C can also lead to Y. Furthermore, in the case of molecules to man evolution, we have never observed the X that leads to Y. We have observed A leading to B (microevolution), and evolutionists ASSUME that the same process can lead all the way to Y, which just isn’t the case.

    At any rate, I know you are a zealot for naturalism, and cannot see reason when it comes to attacks on what you call science.

  • [-2] January 27, 2015 at 5:50pm

    I’ll be more specific then. Evolution is a pillar of atheism, one of its central tenants.

    And on the distinction between observational and historical science, you are a fool if you think molecules-to-man evolution has ever been observed. When we apply what we have learned by observing what occurs in the present in order to infer what happened in the past, this is a very different practice than when we perform experiments and develop technology in the present. Evolutionists refuse to acknowledge the difference because it would betray the fact that they are relying on unprovable assumptions. If anyone told you that “water freezes at zero degrees Celsius” is the same sort statement as “all life of earth is descended from a common ancestor,” you were lied to. If you will not acknowledge that one is provable and observable while the other is by nature unprovable and unobservable, then you are lying to yourself.

  • [-1] January 27, 2015 at 10:23am

    No one is advocating the teaching of creationism in government schools. Evolutionism and creationism are both religious ideologies, and neither should be taught in government schools. We can be so much more productive if we focus on observational science, leaving origins science to be taught by the private institutions that believe them.

    Responses (8) +
  • [-4] January 27, 2015 at 10:13am

    This is good. Evolution is a religion, so a religious group has called for and received recognition of a religious holiday. Now if we are persistent in calling them out for obfuscating observational science with historical science (which attempts to connect preconceived beliefs about the unobservable past with observable data in the present), we might be able to halt the use of government agencies from being used to impose the atheistic religion of naturalism on the culture.

    Responses (3) +
  • [-1] December 19, 2014 at 2:20pm

    #8 brings in the idea of “responsibilities”. In truth, rights and responsibilities are two sides to the same coin. Thus, we ask, to whom are we responsible? Again, if not God, then man. If the mighty care not for our consideration of others, then we have no such responsibility.

    #10 – Better for who? Humans? Crows? Fish?

  • [-1] December 19, 2014 at 2:19pm

    #4 brings “rights” into the discussion, which begs the question, where do “rights” come from? If not God, then man. Thus this is only true where the mighty agree to it. This would also require several caveats (which the Ten Commandments, when understood in the original language, do not). This “law” implies that it is wrong to imprison criminals.

    #5 is merely a statement of opinion. How do atheists define “good” or “full and meaningful”?

    #6 says “you must take responsibility for [your actions]”. If there is no God and you don’t get caught, why would you have to “take responsibility” for your actions?

    #7 attempts to improve on the golden rule, but in application results in the politically correct idiocy that we’re dealing with today. Don’t worry about treating people the way “they want to be treated”. Acting in good faith as you would have someone do to you, you will easily forgive the accidental insults or injuries of another who is also acting in good faith as they would have you do to them. If someone does not afford you that grace, they are not yet seeking to live in harmony with other human beings. This also ignores the many applicable cases where the good thing to do is not the thing that they want you to do. This is often the case for parents raising their children.

    Responses (1) +
  • December 19, 2014 at 2:19pm

    It is absolutely possible to be (relatively) good without believing in God. That’s not the point of Christianity. The Moral Law, as manifested in limited scope via the Ten Commandments, provides an illustration of the NATURE (and not just the actions) of the person who is able to enter an eternally perfect kingdom, abiding there forever, perpetuating joy and causing no pain or strife whatsoever. The lesson that you are supposed to learn from the Old Testament is that we do not have such a nature, and must place our hope and trust in the God who is able to transform us into the perfect versions of ourselves, the creatures that we were always meant to be. But we must also be free, thus we begin our existence imperfect, so that we are able to choose to be made perfect.

    That said, this attempt to “improve” on the Moral Law is laughable. #9 says there is no one right way to live, which basically means you can totally disregard the others if they don’t suit you. The first three have nothing to do with morality whatsoever, but instead deal with how a person should form beliefs. As previously mentioned, a person can believe just about anything and still be a (relatively) good person.

    Responses (1) +
123 To page: Go
Restoring Love