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!