Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham: Looking Back

You may ask, "Where has Judges been all week?" or "Gee, I haven't seen a blog from him in a while..." Well, I'm still here. I'm still posting articles on my G+ community, Biblical Creation Apologetics, after which this blog is named.

But anyhoo, I'm not going to point out flaws in either of the two debaters' arguments, but I am going to say how I felt about the debate itself. I saw the debate (I mean, who hasn't?), and I was amazed. I loved how Ken Ham pointed out the difference between operational and historical science and the evidences he pointed out. It was really cool. I even got to watch it live (I was at my cousin's house sitting at the computer, sipping my cola).

I am definitely going to order the DVD. Did I mention that during the Q&A time, my question was answered? Yes, it really was! At around 2:06:00 Mr. Foreman read my question aloud to Mr. Nye: "Bill Nye, not counting radiometric dating, what evidence is there proving that the earth is old?" (or something like that). I'm so happy to know that my question was answered!

This'll be my only blog for the week, as I have a bunch of portfolio projects to work on. Also, although my interview with Young "Kid" Apologist was not recorded/available to watch on Hangouts on Air, the transcript is being developed, so stay tuned!

Is Atheism a Logical Belief? Or is it Just Belief?

First, let's check out the definition of "atheism" and "religion".

Atheism: (n.) A belief or lack of belief in a God or deity.
Religion: (n.) A belief that may or may not involve a God or deity.
(See Court rules atheism a religion)

Now that we have some things straight, let's move on to the problems with atheism.

• They believe we can get something from nothing
• They believe we can get life from non-life
• They believe we can get order from chaos
• They believe we can get the immaterial from the material

Point 1) Something From Nothing

Obviously, this can't happen. This'd violate the First Law of Thermodynamics, or the Law of the Conservation of Energy. This law states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed; it can only change forms. So how did matter arise out of literally nothing, and give us something (it's like thinking you can make the number 1 by adding 0 and 0 together!)? An even better question: What is nothing?

Point 2) Life From Non-life

This notion violates the Law of Biogenesis, the law that states that life can only come from life, a confirmation of the biblical notion that living things reproduce "after their own kinds". Yet atheists believe that life arose from random, nonliving chemicals that over billions of years gave rise to the first amino acids (which cannot assemble themselves or self-replicate by themselves anyway).

Point 3) Order From Chaos

This violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that over time, matter decays. So how did everything set into place so nicely? Especially when you consider that this supposedly came from a massive explosion.

Point 4) Immaterial From Material

Where did invisible things like morality, space, and time come from? Atheists just assume that they were always there, which can't be because, well, Law of the Conservation of Energy and the "What is nothing" question. And where did all these laws come from, anyway? No one denies them, why is there law without a Law-giver?

In conclusion, atheism is nothing but blind religion. No atheist can deny these philosophical hurdles. The reason why atheists will hold on to their beliefs is because they dislike the idea of a God, as if they had a personal vendetta against Him.

Have a good weekend, folks, God bless!

(See Christianity: The Only Logical Religion and The Four Miracles of Atheism)

The Upcoming Interview With Young "Kid" Apologist

As you may know, this Saturday I am scheduled to interview Google+ user Young "Kid" Apologist on the topic of evolution and creation! I will ask him a few questions on his stance on today's spiritual crisis, his beliefs, and how he came to be such a renowned person at his school. We will then share with each other information about what we currently know about the two origin models.

I will ask Mr. Apologist the following questions (in this particular order):

• How were you raised? Where you raised as a Christian? When and how did you become a YEC?
• What do you think about today's spiritual crisis? Should we be concerned? Why? What do you plan on doing about it? What should we do, as Christians and YECs?
• As an experienced debater, what was it like? How did they go? Who did you debate?
• Do you plan to (publicly) debate someone in the future?
• How did you become such a recognized person at your school, even at your age?
• Have there ever been any criticisms about you? If so, how do you respond to them?

I may think of more questions, but I'll start with these.

From there, we will have a lengthly discussion forum in which we will analyze articles and share information about what we have discovered.

I am really looking forward to our discussion. I can't wait to talk to such a character!

Science and the Bible: Do They Contradict Each Other?

Can science and the Bible go together? Does science confirm it? Bible skeptics time and again declare: "Science and the Bible cannot go together, for religion is the enemy of science!" Well, let's get some things straight.

It's easy to see how science and the Bible do not contradict each other, but rather compliment each other. Here are the Bible references in NIV (emphases added):

• Isaiah 40:22
• "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth...."
• Jeremiah 33:22
• "...As countless as the stars in the sky...."
• Job 28:25
• "...He established the force of the wind...."
• 1 Corinthians 15:41
• "...And star differs from star...."
• Job 38:19-20
• "What is the way to the abode of light? ...Can you take them to their places?"
• Job 26:7
• "...He suspends the earth over nothing."
• Ecclesiastes 1:6
• "The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes...."
• 2 Samuel 22:16
• "The valleys of the sea were exposed...."
• Jonah 2:6
• "To the roots of the mountains I sank down...."
• Leviticus 17:11
• "For the life of a creature is in the blood...."
• Hebrews 11:3
• "...The universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible."
• Job 38:16
• "Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea...?"

So it turns out the the Bible does go hand-in-hand with science! Those Bible skeptics have a lot of explaining to do! But please note that I'm not claiming that the Bible is or should be a science textbook, but I am saying that science confirms it.

Tune in tomorrow for my next blog: it will be about my upcoming interview with Young "Kid" Apologist!

Neanderthals: Are They Human or Not?

All secular schools indoctrinate us with the notion that Neanderthals (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) were a variety or subspecies of human. But were they?

My biology teacher claimed that Neanderthals' DNA is just 30-40% similar to modern humans' (Homo sapiens sapiens, but you already knew that) DNA.Yet when I checked on the Live Science website, they said that Neanderthals' DNA were 99.5% similar! Not even twins are that similar! I quote from the link:

"[Neanderthals'] genomes and ours are more than 99.5 percent identical."

(See Neanderthal: 99.5 Percent Human.)

With a percentage like that, Neanderthals might as well be fully human, because as I've just said, not even twins are that similar. Speaking of being "fully human", what is the standard for being "fully human"? Five fingers? Hair? Bipedalism? A brain? You might as well call a warthog a human, or a lemur, as G+ user Sirius Lee put it. Or even Godzilla, for crying out loud. We just don't know the standards of what is "human", so how can we trust that Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) was a human? I mean, I've already debunked her, but still.

What we now know, however, is that Neanderthals were fully human; they were just people who suffered rickets or arthritis. See Making Monkeys out of Man. Also, their features are so much like "modern man" that they might as well be "modern man". They could've just slipped on a T-shirt and jeans and put on a baseball cap and looked just like you and I. Check out Darwin's Demise, authored by Joe White and Nicholas Comninellis. Another "missing link" refuted.

Stay tuned for tomorrow's blog: Science and the Bible. Also, I am scheduled to have a conversation this Saturday with Young "Kid" Apologist! I will be interviewing him, and we will discuss and share thoughts and information about creation/evolution.

Questions? Comments? Say something below!

My Thoughts on the Bill Nye-Ken Ham Debate

I as a biblical creationist believe that Ken Ham's position is most valid. End of story. Tune in next Monday for my next blog!

Okay, just kidding. I believe that Ken Ham has it easy. He has a degree in science, real operational science, whereas Nye studied engineering. What does engineering have to do with evolution? All Nye did was criticize creationists for indoctrinating children and calling it "child abuse". Says the guy who supports a theory that says that everyone, including those precious children he was talking about, are useless, that they don't have a purpose here, and that life is basically worthless. Yeah, you keep doing that, Bill. Meanwhile, Ham would be gathering whatever his scientists and journalists gathered to utterly destroy Nye. I kinda feel bad for Nye, now that I think about it.

But anyhoo, I'm rooting (and praying) for you all the way, Ken Ham. I'll be sure to watch the live stream, and hopefully I'll be able to get the "uncensored" DVD.  More information here: http://debatelive.org/

Okay, I'm serious this time when I tell you to tune in next Monday for my next blog. :-)

How Evolution Fails to Explain Ethics & Morality

• "If it hurts the other organism, then it's wrong. Millions of years of evolution has taught us that."
• "It's wrong if God says it's wrong."

Which answer best explains the origin of ethics and morality? Well, let's look deeper into both statements.

Evolution claims that we humans learned over the eons that if it hurts the other person, then it's wrong. So basically, you can do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. However, since people live in different places, people develop different views on what is "moral". Therefore, what one person sees as "moral" may not be "moral" to another. This is relative morality, which may also be known as subjective morality.

Special creation states that God decides what is "moral" and "immoral". Since He created us, He has the right to make the rules for us. What God decides as "right", it is so.

Atheists like to argue, "Well, God ordered the death of entire city populations." They argue this without knowledge of the context. They do not read why God ordered their deaths; they cut that part out and highlight the part that says "God ordered their deaths". But really, why did God order peoples' deaths? Because they were so evil, they needed to be blotted out of the face of the earth. Take the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, for example. They were so immoral, and they were so stubborn not to repent, that God decided to wipe them out of existence. The argument that God ordered the deaths of many people is nullified. Also, note how this argument doesn't have to do anything with morality, only that God ordered deaths. Therefore, this argument is invalid.

Now back to relative morality. Relative morality basically says that each society makes their own rules. But if relative morality were true, then what Hitler did to the Jews was not subjectively wrong. It may be wrong to us, but he gets to make the rules for his society, right? If relative morality were true, then we shouldn't have tried to stop Hitler. We shouldn't have stopped the Japanese from invading Nanking and raping and murdering 300,000 people. Because what they did was not wrong according to their society. So why bother?

But objective morality, or the belief that there are objective moral absolutes, says that there is an ultimate standard for what is right and what is wrong. And it's God who does that. It was Him who said that murder was wrong. It was Him who said that thievery was wrong. It was Him who said that lying is wrong and obeying your parents is right. If we made up our own rules, we would do whatever we want, including murder, steal, lie, and disobey your parents (and liberals what you to "break free of prescription", the prescription they gave you, and "set your own rules"). We'd end up like Sodom and Gomorrah, for crying out loud!

So in the end, the evolutionary explanation for ethics and morality is wrong because it tells us that morality is decided by society, but that would mean that we should have left Hitler alone. On the other hand, the creation explanation for the origin of ethics and morality is right because it tells us that there is an ultimate standard for right and wrong, which applies to everyone.

See Can evolution determine right and wrong?, Why is Scripture the Ultimate Standard for Morality and Ethics?, Ethics and Justice, and The creation basis for morality.

Tune in tomorrow for the final blog of the week: My Thoughts on the Bill Nye-Ken Ham Debate!

Can God and Darwin Fit Together?

People like Hugh Ross, Greg Neyman and Walter Kaiser, Jr. think they can manipulate and reinterpret Scripture to fit secular explanations for the origin of the Universe. Some call that aligning Scripture with the evidence. Others call it "politically correct". People like me would call that "compromise". (See Refuting Compromise (Dr. Jonathan Sarfati))

So what's wrong with theistic evolution? Let's go over my main points, and I'll expand:

• It doesn't fit the evidence
• It's reinterpreting Scripture, undermining its authority
• It doesn't fit God's character

Point 1) It doesn't fit the evidence

I've posted many, many articles regarding the problems with a secular explanation of the origin of the Universe (Big Bang and naturalistic evolution) in my Google+ community Biblical Creation Apologetics (you can see the evidence here). All that applies to theistic evolution as well. If the secular explanation is refuted, then compromise is destroyed as well. Theistic evolution is essentially the neo-Darwinian synthesis with a "God" sticker slapped onto it (I always illustrate it that way when I'm talking to theistic evolutionists).

Point 2) It's reinterpreting Scripture, undermining its authority

Where in the Bible does it say millions of years? And when did death and suffering begin? These questions stumped prominent theistic evolutionist Hugh Ross. Sure, the Bible doesn't specifically say 6,000 years either, but biblical chronology and biblical bloodlines only stretch as far back as 6,000 years. Also, when Jesus referred to Genesis, He interpreted it in a literal sense (see Jesus on the age of the earth). Therefore, Jesus Himself refuted day-age creationists. 

Furthermore, since the theistic evolution theory requires guided natural selection (kind of an oxymoron, if you ask me), then death is required. And if it took millions of years of death and adaptation to produce humankind, then how did death come before Adam? If you recall from the Genesis account, death occurred after Adam sinned. So how did death occur before Adam? Also, fossils of thorns were found in rock layers before we see human fossils. And if the rocks at the bottom are older than the ones on top (according to evolutionary thinking), then how did thorns appear before Adam (thorns are also the result of Adam's fall)? No theistic evolutionist has answered these questions. All Hugh Ross and Walter Kaiser did was dodge the question in their debate against Ken Ham and Jason Lisle. Watch this video (or just listen to it, it's just audio):

Point 3) It doesn't fit God's character

Why would God put some bacteria on a blown-up planet and leave them to develop on its own? Why would He use millions of years of mutations and death to produce us? If He were to demonstrate His power, wouldn't He have just created us much faster? Theistic evolution just doesn't fit God's character. God wouldn't leave us to evolve on our own, because He loves and cares for us, and He would take care in designing His creation. He wouldn't use millions of years of mutations and death because He intended us to be perfect, blameless, and immortal. God wouldn't take millions of years to create us because that would fail to show His creative power.

At the end of the day, theistic evolution fails. It fails because it doesn't fit the evidence, it's unscriptural, and it doesn't fit God's character. So no, God and Darwin cannot fit together. Refuting theistic evolutionists is relatively easy. Just point out how it's unscriptural, point to the evidence, and their belief is destroyed. You can use these tips for your next debate with them. Tune in tomorrow for my next blog: How Evolution Fails to Explain Ethics & Morality!

A Tale of Two Forms

The search for missing links has gone on for decades. If paleontologists have been looking for them for that long, you'd expect them to come back with boat-loads of transitional forms. But you haven't. So where are they?

You were probably indoctrinated with the notion that Archaeopteryx was the transition from reptiles to birds, but that is not the case. "But it had feathers, a wishbone, and asymmetrical feathers. This shows it was part bird. It also had teeth, claws on its wings, and bones it its tail, all of which birds lack, but reptiles have." I can see how this can be evidence for evolution, but my view is that these features make it a "mosaic" of both animal groups, as CMI puts it (but it resembles a bird so much that it might as well be an actual bird). Also, there are no fossils showing the transition between scale and feather. In fact, there are no fossil links in the fossil record connecting it to birds or reptiles. "True" birds were actually found below the place where Archaeopteryx was found, and according to Darwinists, lower fossils mean older fossils.  Furthermore, the way its neck was found indicates that it drowned (possibly in a global flood!). See Archaeopteryx‎ and Archaeopteryx is a Bird

You may have heard of Australopithecus afarensis, also known as Lucy. She is supposed to be the ancestor of mankind. But get this: her hips were modified to look like human hips. Also, the hand bones were never found, so we can't even conclude if her hands were "human-like". Most scientists now conclude that she was actually a type of pygmy chimp. Watch this video:

See also: A Look at Lucy's Legacy, Evolution's Hall of Shame, and Lucy's Hips.

I've only listed two (famous) "transitional forms", but if you have any other missing links that you want me to cover, or if you have questions, comment below! Also, tomorrow I will be discussing theistic evolution!

A Report on the Hominid "Nutcracker Man"

I recently read an article in the NY Times regarding the so-called "Nutcracker Man", aka East Africa Man, or Zinjanthropus boisei (Nutcracker Man's Secret: He Didn't Crack Nuts). The article talked about how they were planning on modifying a trait connoted to the hominid: that it did not in fact crack nuts. But what they didn't include: Zinjanthropus boisei was to be reclassified as an australopithecine, a genus in which Lucy is classified. And we know for a fact that Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) was not a human ancestor, but a type of extinct pygmy chimp. Therefore, "Nutcracker Man" is really just a type of extinct chimp, and the tools found with it may have just been tools used on them, rather than tools that it itself used. See: Who was 'Nutcracker Man'?

More information on the mythology of "human ancestors" will be posted tomorrow.

A Tetrapodal "Missing Link" Re-evaluated

GMA News declares: "Ancient legged fish provides missing link in limb evolution" (See Ancient legged fish provides missing link in limb evolution). For a while now, evolutionists claim that a fish evolved into a land-dwelling tetrapod. But how did they acquire this ability to walk?

Here's the evolutionary theory in a nutshell:

• A fish crawls onto land
• Realizing that it can't breathe air, it goes back into the water
• Some time later, the fish tries the same thing
• The same result happens
• The process repeats for millions of years until lungs and fins develop

You see, the evolutionary process can only give one trait at a time. Any more than that would be punctuated equilibrium, or the belief that evolution happens in sudden jumps in traits. But evolution in that sense is mathematically impossible!

A more rational explanation to the origin of land-dwelling animals is an intelligent design. A supernatural Creator must have created land-dwellers with both lungs and legs, at the same time.

Furthermore, the fossil's legs could've been used underwater, not necessarily for walking on land. Fish such as rosy-lipped batfish do this. Neil Shubin, a paleontologist at the University of Chicago even said:

The people who discovered the new "missing link" aren't even consistent with their views on their "treasure".

Tune in tomorrow for my next blog!

The Big Bang Theory: A Review

Many people believe in that a Big Bang gave rise to the Universe. Others believe that a supernatural Creator designed it. Which theory is true? Let's review the facts:

• The Universe is very fine-tuned
• There is order in the Universe
• There is space, matter, time, energy, etc.

Now which theory best explains what we have here?

Big Bang theory

• Two particles appear out of nowhere, collide, and cause a massive explosion
• The explosion hurls matter across space
• Gravity pulls matter together into round lumps; planets, moons and stars form, including planet Earth

Creation model

• "God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1)
• God made a fine-tuned Universe
• God caused order
• God made space, matter, time, energy, etc.

If one were rational, s/he would say, "The creation model makes more sense." Why? Because why and how would an explosion cause order? Where did those particles originate? How did it create time, energy, space, etc? It would male more sense to believe that an intelligent Designer created the Universe.

But how do we know that it was the Judeo-Christian God that created the Universe? For one thing, the Bible clearly states that "God [Himself] created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). Also, all the other gods of other religions are not true gods, but idols (more on this tomorrow). Thirdly, all evidence points to original good design by a good God.

Tune in tomorrow for my next blog!

From Nothing to Everything: Refuting Krauss on the Origin of Everything

The Big Bang - Evolution always comes to nothing. 

Some refuse to believe in God and put all their faith in scientific theories. They accept the "theory of evolution" because they cannot accept the Bible's version that man and the universe appeared from nothing. But how can something come from nothing? It must have an origin. Evolutionary thinking desperately tries to link one life form with another under the premise - given enough time, anything can happen. However, on the scientific journey to link all life, the question must be asked: How did the first life originate on our lifeless planet? Did it pop up from nothing, or did it arrive on some cosmic taxi? 
If it is suggested first life arrived from another planet, the question then arises: Where did life on that planet originate? Continued questioning will reach the point of asking: Where did the first source of life originate? There are only two conclusions:

1. it has always been there without beginning, or
2. there was nothing and suddenly there was something. This is the dilemma of the origin of the universe. It either never had a start (infinite past), or there was nothing and suddenly there was something (a Big Bang).

Isn't it odd then, that some cannot believe in an infinite God who created the universe from nothing; but instead would rather accept that our infinitely complex universe (which the human finite mind cannot possibly comprehend), designed itself from a Big Bang (0 = 1). We should question putting faith in scientific theories which refuse to accept that something may originate from nothing - and yet start their original premise with a Big Bang. Evolution is simply the belief that in the beginning there was nothing – the nothing exploded and gradually created everything. (Genesis 1:1)

More on the evidence for such a Creator will be posted tomorrow.