Sunday, 22 February 2015 19:05

Atheism does not make sense

The atheistic worldview (atheism) assumes that there is no God and everything in the physical universe came about only by natural means.  This is a known as a naturalistic worldview (naturalism).  In these worldviews, there is no basis for abstract concepts like logic or morality.

An atheist's beliefs and actions are inconsistent at best, because his worldview does not have a matching, consistent foundation.  Instead, many foundational concepts rely upon a Christian biblical worldview, and as such does not make sense on several levels.  

Logic & Mathematics

Logic and mathematics are abstract - they have no physical properties.  They are purely conceptual and immaterial, but can be expressed and demonstrated in physical ways.  Atheism cannot explain where logic or mathematics came from.  Many atheists claim that math was an invention of man, yet 1+1 equaled 2 before man existed.  Also, the rules governing these concepts never change.  In the atheist's evolving universe, how can that be so?  One has always been one...why haven't numbers evolved too?  The Bible teaches that God created logic and mathematics and established their absolute rules.


Like logic and math, morality is also abstract.  Again, it is the God of the Christian Bible that has defined the standard for good and evil, consequences of disobedience, and the requirements for forgiveness.  Because atheism requires the absence of God, there can be no moral absolute or standard.  Atheism insists that all life came about as a result of random chemical reactions over vast spans of time.  In this worldview, humans are no more than just more highly developed animals with no purpose other than to procreate.  Consequently, there is no higher authority to answer to beyond that which society has established.  There are some societies, groups, and individuals that accept and practice behaviors deemed as immoral by other peoples.  Sometimes, these disagreements lead to conflict, even war - but why would an atheist care?  To remain consistent with his worldview, the atheist has no place to judge a behavior as either good or bad, nor has any reason or motivation to do so beyond self-preservation, because ultimately there are no eternal consequences.  Why should an atheist hold murder against people when other animals do the same every day with impunity?


Atheists today have staked a claim on science.  Several prominent atheists (Richard Dawkins, Bill Nye, Neil DeGrasse-Tyson, et al.) insist that one cannot be a good scientist unless they have an atheistic worldview.  They claim that science has done away with the need for a God.  Besides this being a preposterous assertion - there are many scientists that have made significant contributions that believe in God and are creationists1 - this is also illogical.  For science to be performed properly, logic and mathematics are required.  As discussed earlier, both of these were created by God.  How can atheists depend upon God for the basis of their argument against God?  Beyond that, science requires that the universe and its behavior remain consistent.  If it were not, then a scientist's observations and measurements today may not be reliable tomorrow, much less next year...thereby defeating a requirement enabling science to be conducted.  The universe created by God is consistent by design, while one arrived at by chance has no reason to be, nor guarantee of being consistent.


Atheism does not make sense.  Science makes sense and is true only from a biblical perspective and obviously, morality has taken its source from the God of the Bible - the ultimate and absolute authority.  God holds all people responsible for their actions, according to His law and commands, atheist or not.

The good news is that God loves "atheists" too!  Today is a great time to consider God's gift of salvation through His Son, Jesus.  If you want to learn more about Jesus, the Bible, and the Truth - then check out our other articles and useful links to external resources.

Learn more about salvation

1 Creationist scientists that have made significant contributions.

Published in Apologetics
Saturday, 21 February 2015 22:18

Isn't evolution a fact of science?

Certainly, this is a topic with many levels of complexity, but in short, the idea of Darwinian evolution is not compatible with Scripture.
To be clear, the term evolution is loosely used today, but it should really be limited to the idea that creatures can transform into more complex creatures over time through small, gradual, genetic changes exclusively via natural processes.  The word evolution should not be used solely to describe or refer to speciation or natural selection.
So why is evolution not compatible with Scripture? 
Jesus, refering to Gen 1:27, stated: "But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.'  (Mar 10:6 ESV).  Notice that Jesus said, "at the beginning of creation" and not after millions of years.  That alone dismisses any possibility of evolution being used by God to bring about the creatures we see today (aka Theistic Evolution).
The Bible allows for natural selection/speciation, or variation within a kind.  Think of all the many different breeds of canines.  The range of variation is great, yet they are all still fundamentally dogs.  Natural selection/speciation is solid, scientific fact - it has been observed, tested and repeated.
The same cannot be said of Darwinian evolution, which insists that one kind of organsim will develop into another kind given enough time.  Such a feat has never been observed in nature nor in the laboratory.  As such, it cannot be tested nor confirmed.  In fact, it should not be considered science at all; more accurately, evolution is more akin to a faith-based belief system.  One that requires a tremendous amount of faith.
The book of Genesis tells us that humans and all earthly creatures were made by God, fully formed and functional, across two days (Gen 1:20-31).  It also states that God made them according to their kinds.  
Why is this important?
We don't typically use the term kind in our language today to describe types of animals.  In modern terminology, the taxonomic hierarchy of Family, is in many cases, closest to the Biblical kind.  For example, the Family Canidae includes all dogs, wolves, foxes, etc.  In simplest terms, dogs will always give birth to other dogs and dog types, never to something that is not a dog, much less a cat.  Neither can one breed a cat with a dog because they are of different kinds.  But you can breed a tiger and a lion, resulting in a liger - because they belong to the same cat kind.
Taking another look at these verses shows that at the end of creation, God called His work "very good."  If evolution is true, then how could God call the supposed millions of years of death, disease, and predation "very good?"  In addition to that, Paul wrote that death entered the world through sin (Rom 5:12), the sin from Adam.  The Bible teaches that death came after man arrived, again in contradiction to evolution.
There are many other arguments that could be made on this topic.  Ultimately, one must decide to believe the infallible, unchanging Word of God or man's fallible, frequently changing ideas.
Even though millions of samples have been found, the fossil record has failed to provide evidence of any transitional forms to support Darwinian evolution.  Yet, according to Darwin himself in his book Origin of the Species, the geologic strata should be filled with intermediate, or transitional, links of one animal transforming into another.
Because of the lack of transitional fossils, evolutionary biologists point out anatomically similar features in different animals, claiming that these similarities indicate common ancestry.  These similarities do not prove a common ancestor, but rather a Common Designer that used similar structures across different animal kinds.
Published in Apologetics
Saturday, 21 February 2015 22:01

Comets - Where do they come from?

Comets cannot be older than thousands of years due to their composition of mostly ice, as they typically lose about 1% of their mass every time they orbit the sun.  Astronomers know this, yet they also believe that the Solar System is billions of years old. Since comets cannot be millions of years old,   many secular astronomers have hypothesized that the comets we see today must have entered the inner solar system relatively recently from a more stable orbit, beyond the eroding effects of the sun.  This hypothesized locale is known as the Oort Cloud (named after Jan Oort). The Oort Cloud has never been observed.  Science requires that all legitimate phenomena be observable, testable, repeatable, and confirmed by peer review.  The Oort Cloud meets none of these criteria.  How then can it be called scientific?

However, "young" comets fit perfectly well into the Biblical account of creation, as the universe is only thousands of years old, not millions and billions.

The Oort Cloud hypothesis should not be taught as fact in our schools.


Published in Apologetics