Were You There When They Crucified My Lord? Answering the Friendly Atheist’s Not-So-Friendly Objection


Hemant Mehta, a Chicago math teacher who blogs as the so-called Friendly Atheist, took an obligatory potshot at Ken Ham for promoting the “Were you there?” tactic when he speaks to children who are being brainwashed into the tenets of humanism. Atheists, humanists and evolutionists of all stripes simply hate this tactic and no wonder, since its first use originates with God Himself [see Job 38:4]!

Mehta spends most of his post quoting Ham and accusing him of being jealous of that debate coward Bill Nye the Pseudoscience Guy, but he did say something at the end of his sparse post that caught my attention:

This plan will, of course, backfire on him.

At some point in the future, a pastor is going to teach these children that Christ rose from the dead.

I can’t wait for a little kid in the congregation to yell out, “Were you there?”

Mehta has missed the point of the objection entirely.

You see, when we ask, “Were you there?”, creationists are not claiming that we cannot determine the past unless we are eyewitnesses. Granted, we do point out that the further we go back in time, the less certainty we may have. Rather the point of “Were you there?” is to underscore the fact that we do have an Eyewitness account. This Eyewitness is God Himself who authored the Scriptures, which never came by the will of men (including the pre-scientific but nonetheless true history in Genesis). Unfortunately, this Creator (who never lies) testifies that the world did not come about by purely uniform, natural processes, a fact of the Text that atheists, humanists and evolutionists choose to ignore. They ignore God’s testimony as irrelevant, suppressing the truth in unrighteousness, because modern scientists who’ve chained scientific inquiry to pure naturalism have concocted an all-natural Just-so story to replace the historical Creation account in Genesis.

So it is on the basis not of personal witness, but of Superior Witness that we object with “Were you there?”

Of course, in the case of Christ’s resurrection, there were in fact credible witnesses to the Resurrected Lord. The Apostle Paul noted that there were man post-resurrection witnesses still living as of the writing of his first epistle to the Corinthian church. In fact, he states this just after he quotes a creed likely given to him within a decade of Christ’s ascension. [see 1 Corinthians 15 and this post for more details]. The evidence for Christ’s resurrection is in fact overwhelming unless one resorts to special pleading for pure naturalism and this is precisely because we have credible eyewitnesses who were there, just as we have the perfect testimony of our Creator to vouchsafe the truth of the history recorded in Genesis.

May God grant the Friendly Atheist repentance and eyes to see,

Tony, DefGen.org
Author of Johnny Came Home

About these ads

58 thoughts on “Were You There When They Crucified My Lord? Answering the Friendly Atheist’s Not-So-Friendly Objection

  1. If we look at the rocks around us, we have God’s testimony that the earth is billions of years old. If we look at the fossils in those rocks, or if we look at the DNA of the creatures around us, we have God’s testimony that they have come about by means of evolution. This Eyewitness testimony is from God Himself who created them and you. Why do you deny God’s testimony, but continue to call Him a liar with respect to what He is telling us through His creation?

    • Lindberg,

      Why would you equate the flawed uniformitarian beliefs of men who have chained science to pure naturalism [aka anti-supernaturalism] with the testimony of a supernatural Creator? That doesn’t even make sense. A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. If a supernatural God “creates” by purely natural processes which make Him unnecessary, how could He say that the evidence for His existence is clearly seen from that very same creation so that men are without excuse? [Romans chapter 1, by the way] Meanwhile, creationists affirm the uniformity of nature because the Bible affirms it [Genesis 8:22], though we note that this promise of uniformity does not preclude miracles and that it was made after the Creation Week, after the Fall and after the Flood. meanwhile, if the universe came about by chance, random processes, why should we presume that nature is uniform everywhere? Only a universe created by a Creator who is omnipresent and does not change can make sense of the uniformity of nature. Evolutionists affirm the uniformity of nature, but have no non-contradictory, non-arbitrary basis for doing so. But I’m off-topic. The bottom line is that I’m not calling God a liar because the all-natural interpretations of men are not the testimony of the Creator but rather the willful ignorance of those who have exchanged the truth for a lie because they suppress the truth in unrighteousness. God is not a man that He should lie, which is why we should trust the testimony of His revealed Word, the Holy Bible.

  2. That question really got you tied up in gobblydegook, didn’t it

    I’m not talking about your strawman of “the all-natural interpretations of men” but just taking an honest look at the evidence God provides us through His creation.

    Strange! It seems that “creationists” don’t believe in creation.

    • Lindberg,

      Agan [and we both know that by this I mean AGAIN&AGAIN&AGA…..], you are conflating interptretation of the evidence with the evidence itself. And that “gobblydeegook” basically demonstrated how arbitrary your worldview is, so you might want to read it again, sir.

    • There’s always someone who reacts rather than bothering to read the article…. Deven Kale, as this article notes, you’ve quite missed the point. Read it again. btw, the Bible is pretty much the most well-attested document in history, so you’re gonna have to throuw out the historical method to deny it. Good luck with that.

      • Moses Prophesies Herod and Jesus Christ Genesis 49:10

        Herod’s father was an Idumean and his mother was a Nabatean Arab. Herod was king of Judea because he conquered Judea by force, leading a Roman army. So, Herod was not ethnically a Jew and the Jews had every reason to resent his rule.

        Genesis 49:10 (KJV)

        10The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.

        John 5:46 (KJV)

        46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.

        Shiloh

        The Latin Vulgate translates the word as “he … that is to be sent” , which would be the equivalent of the Hebrew shaluach (Hebrew: שלוח, “messenger”), indicating a possible corruption of the text (on either side). The Peshitta “the one to whom [it] belongs” Similarly, the Septuagint translates the word to “the things stored up for him”

        Genesis 49:10 (DRA)

        10 The sceptre shall not be taken away from Juda, nor a ruler from his thigh, till he come that is to be sent, and he shall be the expectation of nations.

      • No, I’m not being dismissive. I read the entire argument and it seems all of the evidence you claim to have comes from the Bible. I’m asking, were you there when the Bible was written? If not, how can you be so sure of it’s authenticity? In other comments by others, they’re attempting to prove the Bible with the Bible. That’s like me trying to prove Harry Potter is a true story by using more quotes from Harry Potter: it’s just ridiculous to do so.

        My real question is this: where is the real evidence to prove the Bible true? specifically the New Testament since you’re a Christian. There are no contemporary accounts of any of the miracles of Jesus, they all post-date his death. There are even no contemporary accounts of the life of Jesus. In fact the very reason for his parents being in Bethlehem at all, for the census, never actually happened. Had thousands of people actually seen him rise to heaven, there would be some other writings for it somewhere, and there are none. Take the Bible out of the equation, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that any of the “miracles” written in it actually happened.

        So again, how are you so sure of it’s authenticity? Were you there when it was written?

      • So the baseline issue we’re arguing is whether the Bible or man’s reason should be our ultimate authority… and you don’t want me to use the Bible to argue… No thanks. You can stand on the hill to defend the hill, so I’ll keep using God’s Word, bub. While I wasn’t there when it was written, other eyewitnesses were. As I explain in another post [http://siriusknotts.wordpress.com/2012/03/23/refuting-the-legendary-jesus-lie/], there’s no reason to rule out the supernatural except to confirm your own naturalistic bias. btw, if we’re arguing whether events in the Bible took place, why would we take the Bible out of the equation? In the meanwhile, God affirms the veracity and authority of Scripture by fulfilled prophecy.

      • What I’m saying is that when one tries to prove the Bible is true, using the Bible itself to do so is fallacious. You need to have evidence from outside of the Bible to back up the claims within the Bible. For the most part, the only proven things within the Bible are that some of the cities actually existed. Some of them were even destroyed, just like it says in the Bible. But when it comes to the most important accounts of the New Testament, the life of Jesus and his actions, there is a very obvious lack of evidence for them. Where is all the evidence to support that it’s all true? If even half of it actually happened, then there would be numerous extra-biblical accounts of them, and yet there are none.

        So as I say, without the Bible, there is no reason to believe any of these things ever happened. Your refusal to try to prove the Bible is true without using quotes from the Bible itself is just more evidence to show that there is no reason to believe that any of it really happened. Even the supposed prophecies fulfilled within the Bible mean nothing. If you’re talking about the supposed Olt Testament prophecies fulfilled in the New Testament, you’d have to be very naive to think that the writers of the New Testament weren’t already familiar with them and wrote them in purposely. For the prophecies written about their future, they’re like all other prophecies: they’re written in such general terms that they could mean literally anything. They’re actually worse than those of Nostradamus, and his are pretty bad.

        And then there’s the greatest failed prophecy of all time, Jesus returning during the 1st or 2nd century… Of which I have seen no good response.

      • Deven,

        You’re offering us a false dilemma. You can defend the hill while standing on the hill. To provide an example, in order to argue for the laws of logic, you must in fact use the laws of logic [you really never thought of that, did you?] If you think that there are zero extraBiblical references to Christ, man are you deluded! Or maybe you haven’t heard of Josephus, Pliny the Younger or Tacitus? http://siriusknotts.wordpress.com/2012/03/19/defending-christs-existence/ You really should do some honest research before you go parroting the baseless lies of Bible skeptics

      • Actually no, in order to defend the laws of logic, you need not use them. The reason is simple: they’re man-made. Somebody made them up, and over time others have added or removed from them, perfecting logic until we’ve gotten logic in it’s current form. It’s like trying to say that a hill of dirt is natural, when there’s track marks all over it while a bulldozer is pushing more dirt up the slope. This isn’t a new question for me, people throw it at me all the time, like a monkey throwing feces.

        Let me correct myself, in that I obviously mis-spoke: there are zero reputable extra-biblical references to your Christ, for example, Josephus isn’t as solid of a source as you think (hopefully your terrible comment system accepts links). The others are equally as questionable.

      • Deven,

        Man didn’t invent the laws of logic. We discovered them. If you suppose otherwise, if you suppose you can argue for the laws of logic without using the laws of logic, I’ll be happy to bring the popcorn.

      • Yeah, just keep on saying that hill is natural. Just ignore the bulldozer, it obviously had nothing to do with it.

      • Deven,

        As a point of irony, your bulldozer analogy is an example of flawed logic. Try studying epistemology a bit. No one on this planet thinks that the laws of logic or natural laws did not exist before human beings discovered them. The law of noncontradiction was articulated by humans but it existed as independently from us as any rock we might have discovered. Your bulldozer analogy is based on a false premise that we created rather than discovered the laws of logic. The bulldozer is there to uncover what lies beneath the hill, not to form it.

    • One either has to accept an Infinite Creator that created and set everything in motion, or an infinite space that things just happened to form in by accident. Either way one has to accept something Infinitely Existing. A Christian has proof of the Triune God through divine revelation of the Prophets and the Apostles called the Holy Bible, a Darwinist atheist has no proof for their claims.

      How We Got The Bible – (Includes subtitles in English & Spanish)
      By: Dr. Paul L. Maier

      Dr. Paul L. Maier is a prolific author, biblical scholar, and dedicated Christian. His popular and scholarly writings now circulate worldwide in more than 7 million copies in 17 different languages and include his best-selling book, A Skeleton in God’s Closet. A distinguished professor of history at Western Michigan University, his interests are the ancient Near East, ancient Greece and Rome, Christianity and the Roman Empire, and the Reformation Era. He also serves as third vice president for the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.

      http://www.lhmmen.com/studyvideofull.asp?ID=12754&fid=1993&mode

      Bible On Trial: Beyond A Reasonable Doubt – (Includes subtitles in English & Spanish)
      By: Craig Parton, Esq.

      Craig Parton is a Christian apologist; he is also a trial lawyer and partner at Price, Postel & Parma LLP, a law firm based in Santa Barbara, California. He completed his doctorate in law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco. He also completed a master’s degree in Christian Apologetics under Dr. John Warwick Montgomery at the Simon Greenleaf School of Law (now Trinity Law School) in Santa Ana, California. As a seven-year staff member with Campus Crusade for Christ, he traveled to more than 100 colleges and universities defending the Christian faith through lectures and debates.

      Parton has published articles and reviews in various theological journals and festschrifts. He has also written three books. These include The Defense Never Rests: A Lawyer’s Quest for the Gospel and Religion on Trial. Parton is also the United States Director of the International Academy of Apologetics, Evangelism and Human Rights in Strasbourg, France.

      http://www.lhmmen.com/studyvideofull.asp?ID=16902&fid=2290&mode

      Challenge of Islam (Part One): What is Islam?
      By: Sam Shamoun

      Sam Shamoun is a native of Kuwait. He moved to the United States with his family at an early age. His religious background is based on teachings of the “Church of the East” or the “Nestorian Church,” commonly practiced in most Assyrian homes.

      As an adolescent, Shamoun’s faith often came under fire. His Christian beliefs were frequently challenged by those who maintained Islam as the “one true religion.” From these unsettling encounters, he began to dig deeply into the basics of the Christian faith he confessed but wanted to know more about. After a thorough and critical examination of the Scriptures, his ability to share the Gospel and his capacity to answer skeptics’ questions — specifically Muslim objections — increased dramatically.

      Today, Shamoun is a frequent contributor to a prominent Web site dedicated to challenging the teachings of Islam. Additionally, he engages in debates as an informed apologist refuting accusations and attacks leveled by proponents of Islam against Christianity.

      http://www.lhmmen.com/studyvideofull.asp?ID=11684&fid=1952&mode

      Challenge of Islam (Part Two): Defending the Christian Faith
      By: Sam Shamoun

      http://www.lhmmen.com/studyvideofull.asp?ID=12218&fid=1973&mode

      Holy Bible Video: How We Got the Bible and Bible On Trial:

      http://www.facebook.com/pages/Holy-Bible/415782980234?sk=app_2392950137

      =====================================

      The Crucifixion of our Lord was in 33 A.D. and the Apostolic Writings or letters were all written in-between 33 A.D. and 70 A.D. “with the exception of Revelation which was written by John while exiled on Patmos Island in his old Age” which is why the destruction of the second temple is not brought up by the Apostles. Matthew, John, Peter, and Jude were four of the Twelve Apostles. James the brother of our Lord, Mark, Luke who also wrote Acts of the Apostles were later converts how ever according to Irenaeus against Heresies the Gospel of Mark is from Peter and Luke is from Paul. Mark and Luke simply wrote down what Peter and Paul told them to. Their writings are based on what they observed or what they were told by the Twelve Apostles or Mary and were Authorized by the Apostles. Paul who wrote the fourteen Epistles Romans through Hebrews was chosen by Jesus and his writings were also authorized by the Apostles.

      The Agnostics or atheists that keep making the claims that what we have in the New Testament was written later as a result of Oral Tradition either intentionally ignore or are completely ignorant about the mass collection of the Early Church writings by:

      Clement (A.D. 35 – 100)

      Ignatius (A.D. 35 – 107)

      Polycarp (A.D. 69-155)

      Justin (A.D. 100 – 165)

      Irenaeus (A.D. 115/125 – 200/202)

      Tertullian (A.D. 155/160 – 220/230)

      and so on.

      They also ignore the fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls, “the Old Testament” ,was written before the inner-testimonial period, non Christian accounts such as Josephus prove that Jesus was an actual person, archeological finds have all been in agreement with what is written in the Bible, geological events such as earthquakes, and astronomical events “such as eclipses ‘blood moon” from the past are also in agreement with what is written in the Bible.

      P.S.

      It’s annoying when the Science or Discovery Channel keeps playing shows claiming that the Early Church with held books at the Council of Nicaea thus defining Christianity as we know it and that we just recently discovered these so called Lost Gospels. If they were with held or lost then why have they been preserved, reproduced, and published in the Ante Nicene Fathers which was produced before they found the fragments in Egypt.

      =====================================

      New Testament How the Church Formed the Canon

      The Old Testament was all ready selected and used by the Hebrews before the First advent of Jesus Christ hence the Greek Septuagint which was the Hebrew Old Testament Translated to Greek around 200 B.C. as for the New Testament there was three things that effected the Canonicity:

      1. Bibliographical, Was the document written close to the time of the event?

      How many copies are available for comparison?

      2. Internal Evidence, Did the writers have the means and opportunity to get the stories right?

      Are there obvious contradictions within the works?

      3. External Evidence, Is there evidence outside the documents that can validate the historical claims of the documents?

      They didn’t add the Gnostic writings because they were not Apostolic writings but were from the Marcions and the Valetinians read Irenaeus Against Heresies: Book I Chapter XX. the false Gospel of Thomas, and Irenaeus Against Heresies: Book I Chapter XXXI. the false Gospel of Judas.

      Irenaeus (A.D. 115/125 – 200/202)

      The Church did not hide or suppress the Gnostic Gospels as the secularist claim today they were published in the Ante-Nicene Fathers in 1885 to 1897 before they found the Gnostic Fragments in 1945.

      =====================================

      The Tanakh “Old Testament” Proclaims Yeshua the Messiah

      We know for a fact from the Dead Sea Scrolls that the Old Testament was written before the inner-testimonial period, and we know from non Christian accounts such as Josephus that Jesus was an actual person, we also know that archeological finds have all been in agreement with what is written in the Bible, we also know that astronomical events from the past are also in agreement with what is written in the Bible.

      Psalm 16:11 (ESV)

      11 You make known to me the path of life;
      in your presence there is fullness of joy;
      at your right hand are pleasures forevermore.

      ================================================================

      Isaiah 7:14 (ESV)

      14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

      Isaiah 9:6 (ESV)

      6 For to us a child is born,
      to us a son is given;
      and the government shall be upon his shoulder,
      and his name shall be called
      Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
      Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

      Matthew 1:21-23 (ESV)

      21She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” 22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:
      23 “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
      and they shall call his name Immanuel”
      (which means, God with us).

      ================================================================

      Micah 5:2 (ESV)

      2 But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah,
      who are too little to be among the clans of Judah,
      from you shall come forth for me
      one who is to be ruler in Israel,
      whose coming forth is from of old,
      from ancient days.

      Matthew 2:1-6 (ESV)

      1Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem, 2saying, “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.” 3When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him; 4and assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. 5They told him, “In Bethlehem of Judea, for so it is written by the prophet:
      6 “‘And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
      are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
      for from you shall come a ruler
      who will shepherd my people Israel.'”

      ================================================================

      Psalm 110:1 (ESV)

      1 The Lord says to my Lord:
      “Sit at my right hand,
      until I make your enemies your footstool.”

      Matthew 22:41-45 (ESV)

      41 Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, 42saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” They said to him, “The son of David.” 43He said to them, “How is it then that David, in the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying,
      44 “‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand,
      until I put your enemies under your feet’?
      45If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?”

      ================================================================
      Zechariah 11:10-13 (ESV)

      10 And I took my staff Favor, and I broke it, annulling the covenant that I had made with all the peoples. 11 So it was annulled on that day, and the sheep traders, who were watching me, knew that it was the word of the Lord. 12 Then I said to them, “If it seems good to you, give me my wages; but if not, keep them.” And they weighed out as my wages thirty pieces of silver. 13 Then the Lord said to me, “Throw it to the potter”—the lordly price at which I was priced by them. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the Lord, to the potter.

      Matthew 26:15 (ESV)

      15and said, “What will you give me if I deliver him over to you?” And they paid him thirty pieces of silver.

      Matthew 27:3-10 (ESV)

      3Then when Judas, his betrayer, saw that Jesus was condemned, he changed his mind and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, 4saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.” They said, “What is that to us? See to it yourself.” 5And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself. 6But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, “It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is blood money.” 7So they took counsel and bought with them the potter’s field as a burial place for strangers. 8Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day. 9 Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel, 10and they gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord directed me.”

      ================================================================

      Psalm 22:16-18 (ESV)

      16 For dogs encompass me;
      a company of evildoers encircles me;
      they have pierced my hands and feet —
      17 I can count all my bones—
      they stare and gloat over me;
      18 they divide my garments among them,
      and for my clothing they cast lots.

      Zechariah 12:10 (ESV)

      10 “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn.

      John 19:23-24 (ESV)

      23 When the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they took his garments and divided them into four parts, one part for each soldier; also his tunic. But the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom, 24so they said to one another, “Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see whose it shall be.” This was to fulfill the Scripture which says,

      “They divided my garments among them,
      and for my clothing they cast lots.”

      John 19:32-37 (ESV)

      32So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first, and of the other who had been crucified with him. 33But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water. 35 He who saw it has borne witness— his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth— that you also may believe. 36 For these things took place that the Scripture might be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken.” 37And again another Scripture says, “They will look on him whom they have pierced.”

      John 20:24-29 (ESV)

      24Now Thomas, one of the Twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. 25So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.”
      26Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” 27Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.” 28Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” 29Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

  3. God created this world WITH age and ordered it to multiply and grow. Nothing was really created ‘young’. For instance:
    God created ‘man’ not ‘boy’ – this infers that ‘man’ had age.
    God created ‘woman’ not ‘girl’ – ditto.
    God created animals that were ‘adult’ enough to procreate and multiply as He commanded them to do; he did not command them to multiply after they had had months to grow up enough to do so.

    It seems logical that He would have also done the same with the trees, fruits, and everything else He made. So, while this is a ‘young’ earth and universe, it can also be called ‘old’. BUT the age was CREATED, not natural, until God ordered things to multiply. I am no scientist, but that is what I deduce when I read Genesis. :D

    • I know where you are going with this, and that is God made the Universe ‘mature’. I think the word ‘old’ can give the wrong impression.

    • Where is your logical argument? Your reasonable proof? Where are the eyewitnesses and written accounts of your religion of atheism? Where is your proof of evolution with an account of evolving species into another species? Is it happening now? It would have to be because with the theory of evolution, things are always changing, so what species are the humans evolving into now? Why is there no evolution going on now? Because it didn’t ever happen and it will never replicate because there is not any proof or evidence of one species “evolving” and turning into another species. That is so crazy to even consider.

      • Evolution happens every day. Evolution only claims small changes from one generation to the next which, when isolated from another group of the same species will, over many generations, eventually lead to large enough changes that they can no longer reproduce with the other group. That’s all speciation is. The only requirement for one group of creatures to be a different species from another is an inability for the two groups to reproduce, and that’s it.

        Now concerning transitional forms: you yourself are transitional. You are the transition from your parents to your children. There is no such thing as a crocoduck in evolution. Nothing will ever be one part one species and one part another. The changes are always very small from one generation to the next, but when you take samples which are far enough apart, you can get a good picture of the changes which have happened over that time. That’s all a “transitional fossil” really is: a fossil which has characteristics which are close enough in form and the right age to be recognizable as the ancestors of one known group, but also the descendant of another. If you find a (natural) crocoduck, that’s a good way to start disproving evolutionary theory, because it’s impossible for evolution to produce such a thing.

  4. I got this link from Ken Ham’s Facebook update. This is really great article. The blind people have no clue of color or shape. So are those who are spiritually blind. Thank you for bringing out this truth clearly. Greeting from Austria.

  5. Funny, if we want to talk about “evidences” as God’s testimony, completely ignoring the fact the God has already told us what he did and reiterates it in Exodus 20:11 (We also have to consider that Adam was there for day six and that he lived long enough to tell Methuselah who in turn could have told it to Noah), then what about all the evidences for a global flood? What about Moon recession limiting the evolutionary time scale? What about the salinity of the oceans? What about the current population levels coupled with deductive math? (and on and on and on) That, coupled with the fact we do have eye witnesses for the events we claim should be enough. Does evolution have an eye witness? ,I guess if one consider a rock to be their grandpa then they could make a case, but then the credibility would rely on their interpretation using dating methods which are based on arbitrary numbers to calibrate and therefor justify their position with corrupted data. Plus they would have to realize that these methods have an awfully hard time accurately dating things of a known age! You know, God’s word never changes to fit the evidence, it doesn’t have to; However, I would submit that the evolutionary model changes on a regular basis as there is always something that interferes with their preconceived ideas.Perhaps it would be wise then to accept the unaltered Word of God, using that as the “looking glass” or as your presupposition rather than rely on the faulty interpretations of many with a bias that has no founding!

  6. It’s wonderful to see men of God stand up for what they know they be truth, and refusing to to back down even when attacked. Sometimes, I wonder if there’s really anyone who truly believes in the Bible just the way it was written? Stumbling across a blog like this, brings much hope to my heart. Thank you, Tony for your brave stance on Creation by a Creator.

  7. I find the replies from those who would disagree are more typical and far less profound. This article was well done, and I hope an eye opener for the many who will come across it. I am a YEC, and I believe in interpreting God’s word in light of His word, and not interjecting man’s ideas. The idea of billions of years in the bible can not be gleamed from bible, it took men rejecting the written Word to come up with such a thing.

  8. What a breath of fresh air it is to hear the voice of reason in the midst of the dismissive willful ignorance of those who refuse to acknowledge the voice of God in Creation and Scripture! Thank you!

    • Ugh. Read the article before posting next time. The question is one of reliable witness. Scientists weren’t there to see the all-natural history of the world unfold as they claim it did, whereas God did in fact witness the creation of this world and has confirmed His Testimony by fulfilled prophecy.

      • Scientists may not have been there but there is a trail of evidence left behind over the years. Just like nobody may be there to see a crime (murder) but it leaves behind a trail of evidence that can used to conclude that a murder did happen. Its even used to determine in the way it happened based on the trail! God may have witnessed it otherwise he wouldnt be god. But whats the proof that the bible is written by god? You are using the bible to prove that the bible is true. It could have as well been written by humans. If bible is really written by god then why are there so many versions of bible out there? And they obviously differ. And why are there so many contradictions in the bible (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html). Why does god allow slavery as a norm and why are you not following that if you are a true christian?

      • Scientists aren’t neutral. They may be following a trail, but they have determined from the outset that only natural answers are allowed, meaning that even if all evidence pointed to design, such a conclusion would be excluded because it isn’t natural. They’ve already ruled out one suspect [God] and one possible method of origin [creation]. By excluding any explanation that doesn’t lead to a natural conclusion, scientists have placed themselves in aposition where they routinely deny the evidence for God. For example, Richard Dawkins must claim that evidence for design is only “apparent design;” that it looks designed but it can’t be because of his a priori assumption that everything came about by purely natural processes. Furthermore, if God exists [He does] and He has done anything [as the Bible claims] then at some point they are going to be guilty of making up all-natural just-so stories to account for things naturally that they should have given God credit for! The Bible calls this suppressing the truth in unrighteousness and exchanging the truth for a lie.

        Now if the Bible was written by humans, why does it contain the supernatural mark of fulfilled Bible prophecy, many of them uttered centuries before their fulfillment? Bible versions [translations] differ according to word choice preferences, grammatical composition and the type of translation used [word-for-word, thought-for-thought, paraphrase], etc, but just as you can read a copy of Moby Dick in English or German, there is no change to its essence and certainly nothing in those translations which contradicts any key doctrine or message of Scripture. In fact, the very fact that we have so many manuscripts makes us more certain as to where variances have occured.

        As to your last two objections…

        You’ve linked to a biased site that claims the Bible contains contradictions. In my experience, all such notions are typically the misunderstanding of the Bible critic [most of whom have never even read it cover to cover, especially not with someone alongside faithfully answering questions]. All too often, I get parroted “contradictions that have been answered many times over. There are “contradictions” because people see but do not observe, hear but do not listen. I encourage you to read my review [and if you have time the book] of Answering Supposed Bible Contradictions at http://bookwyrmslair.wordpress.com/2012/05/04/demolishing-supposed-bible-contradictions-exploring-forty-alleged-contradictions-volume-2-ken-ham-bodie-hodge-tim-chaffey-editors-master-books-2012/.

        God allows slavery [really a form of voluntary indentured servitude as practiced by early American colonists; I understand if the word misled you, but reading the rest of the passages involved makes the distinction clear] in order to clear up a man’s debts, but the Bible lays down laws to make sure the voluntary slave is treated humanely and that his term is for no more than 6 years, etc. It was a norm for the times in which said laws were written, as much as it was the norm in colonial America. I do not practice it now because it is allowed but not demanded by the law. It is reprehensible that many used these passages out-of-context in order to justify the kidnapping, torture and forced slave labor of blacks in the South, but that racist idiocy was never condoned nor prescribed by the Word of God. Their condemnation be upon their own heads.

        Regards,
        Tony

  9. The Bible was not written by god simply because its not treated as such by half of the world. Is god really that stupid? If he really wanted to make people follow him, why didnt he hardcode the ten commandments in the brain? And your god does want to follow him because the book says that if one doesnt, then he will go to hell.

    • That’s a really stupid argument because it assumes that God doesn’t want our willing obedience, that He only wants obedient robots. The cost of free will is that we can choose to reject God, who is love, life, truth, light and so much more; by rejected Him and His will, we accept His opposite: hate, death, error and darkness. As CS Lewis noted in The Great Divorce:

      “In the end, there are only two kinds of people: Those who say to God, Thy will be done, and those to whom God says, thy will be done.”

      For more on the cost of free will, see this post: http://siriusknotts.wordpress.com/2008/02/17/the-cost-of-free-will/

      • So you are saying that there is in freewill involved in choosing between heaven and hell? What kind of a choice is that? Who would want to go to hell? And if we do have freewill then doesnt it mean that your god is not omnipotent? How can omnipotence and freewill go together? Where is freewill when we dont even have control over when we are born and when we die? Where is freewill when you are not even aware of your mouth movements when speaking? Where is freewill when you make a mistake while doing something? Why would someone consciously screw-up? Where is freewill for a schizophrenic whose behavior can be influenced by medication?

      • What kind of a choice is that? Well, when you have a God who is by definition, Life, Light, Truth, Perfection, Purpose, etc, and you choose to reject Him, what do you suppose you choose in default but Death, Darkness, Error, Corruption, Hell, etc? If God exists and He is the type of God described in the Bible, a rejection of God [the default selection by the way] can have no other consequence, logically speaking.

        God’s omnipotence is His ability to do anything that it logically possible and consistent with His revealed nature. His ability is not impugned if chooses not to do something. He has the power to make us do what He wants. He chooses otherwise. Instead, by His power and grace, he offers us a means of salvation from the hell you so despise. We do not control when we are born or when we die; it is a gift, but we do control what we do in this life. Free will to exercise your mouth is exercised even if you do not understand the entire process. You can choose to drive your car, even if you do not move the engine pistons directly. Your free will is not impugned simply because it is limited by your circumstances. Nor is free will impugned simply because you chose incorrectly and thereby made a mistake; rather it is ratified! People consciously screw up because they aren’t omniscient, because they think they are right anyway and because they choose to act on their convictions.

        Your last objection is more complicated than space allows. I will not insult the schizophrenic with an overly simplistic reply. Suffice it to say that the medication improves his ability to exercise his free will.

        Regards,
        Tony

  10. Yes, asking someone who tells about the crucifixion, which we know really happened, and thinks you can then ask “Where you there?” it applies the same way: GOD WAS THERE. GOD EXISTS. He had it recorded in the Bible so we know that there is nothing we need to do to be saved, no religion to follow, no “good” works to do…Jesus did it all…HE WAS THERE! :)

  11. If you say by rejecting God you choose Hell, then isnt that a choice? And why would anyone reject god if they think they are going to hell? And if thats the case, what kind of a choice is that? Where is freewill in choosing God and rejecting god and in turn choosing heaven and hell?

    If god can only do what is logically possible then how is he omnipotent? It means that even his behavior is dictated by laws which in turn means that he can be completely explained by natural phenonmeon! If we cannot control our death which is in turn controlled by god, then how do you know that person who died an atheist 5 min ago would not accept Jesus after 1 year? Who makes the decision to not allow any more time for the person to make a choice between heaven and hell? So where is the freewill in that?

    How is freewill ratified when we make a mistake? Are you saying that people consciously screw up just because they want to exercise their freewill? Ha ha!

    If the medication improves a schizophrenic’s ability to exercise his freewill then doesnt it mean that freewill is influenced by medication? And if its how is that freewill? It looks like you dont have a correct understanding of freewill.

    • dragonbook,

      Why would anyone make that choice? YOU are making that choice. By rejecting God, you reject everything he is… and accept what’s left.

      Omnipotence is not being able to do anything at all. That wouldn’t even make logical sense. God can’t make circles with sharp angles because that’s not logically possible. He can do anything that’s logically possible. He also cannot do anything that’s logically inconsistent with his revealed nature. For example, if God is truth, how could He lie?

      As to God’s omniscience, God knows who would make the choice to be saved whether they died five minutes from now or a year. You’re a bit confused as to the difference between free will and the limitations of one’s environment, which is just silly and not at all logical. Your environment and conditions prevent you from making logically impossible decisions. For example, you cannot exercise your free will to transform yourself into a poached egg, but you can exercise your free will to type a reply to this comment. Just because there are logically impossible conditions under which you cannot exercise your free will, there is no reason you cannot exercise your free will in logically possible conditions.

      For example, when you make a choice and you make a mistake, you validate free will. If you could never exercise your free will to make a mistake, then this would be evidence of a programmed response and we could say that free will is an illusion. But the fact that we can make mistakes means free will does exist.

      Stop entertaining this notion of unfettered free will which can do impossible things! Are you a wizard? You cannot exercise your free will to do things which are not possible. I’m not saying that people consciously screw up because they want to exercise free will; I’m saying they consciously make mistakes because they are in fact exercising their free without the benefit of omniscience!

      As to your worries that God doesn’t allow us enough time, He’s under no obligation to save us, sir. He has stacked the deck in favor of belief. Creation itself speaks of His existence, his power and glory. Our conscience speaks implies moral law and a possible Lawgiver. Our sense of justice tells us that sin must be punished. God gave us the Scriptures and sent His Son to show us the way; still men reject Him. But He promises that those who seek Him with their whole heart will not fail to find Him, so don’t worry your pretty little head over whether He has given us sufficient opportunity or evidence to make our decision.

      • No, sir. You are deluded. There is no such thing as untethered free will. Even God’s will is tempered by the constraints of His nature. Your objection is based on an idea that is logically impossible. It will not stand when you give an account before the True and Righteous Judge, sir.

      • Didnt they know that before consciously screwing up? Thats exactly why your theory of people consciously screwing up doesnt make sense.

      • Again, people consciously screw up because they think they’re right when they are most certainly not. How does that not make sense? [Aside from the fact that you aren’t really reading what I’m writing]

      • I did read what you read. You are missing the point. Let me give you an example. Consider an instance where a person commits a murder in anger. Are you saying that the person was consciously anger and hence he consciously commited the murder?

        If people got angry consciously then there wouldnt be anything like “Anger management”.

      • Anger management is a practice where men exercise their free will to choose to get their anger under control. You need to put down the billy club and let this horse rest, son. Its dead. You’ve got nothing here. So-called crimes of passion still involve free will, for many go through similar situations and choose not to murder anyone; instead they choose to suppress their murderous rage and try a more rational course.

  12. Are you suggesting that Darwin and all other evolutionists are unnaturally made because they study the natural world and not Bronze Age texts to establish the truth regarding the laws of nature. Why do creationists steadfastly continue to believe in the ancient superstition of blood sacrifice and a world created in 6 (24 hr) days in the face of all that we know today? Cretinism would be an appropriate name for your movement, as rationality clearly has nothing to do with any of your extraordinary claims. I suggest you take a course in critical thinking to discover just how far off course you are.

    • Thank you for the obligate ad hominem, Bellamy. I’ve come to expect as much from those evos who claim to be adherents of rational thinking. Nevermind that pure naturalism [[which modern science dogmatically adheres to] is logically self-defeating. Those who believe in pure naturalism must then believe that nature can do supernatural things: that everything can come from nothing [or unobservable comic book multiverses when the observable sample size of universes is exactly one], that life can come from nonlife, that complex, specified information can come without intelligence [when it has never been observed to come about any other way] and that a frog can truly become a prince after all if we just give it millions of years. Meanwhile “cretinism” proposes a belief in conditional uniform naturalism by way of God’s promise in Genesis 8:22 [which we note occurs after Creation, the Fall and the Flood] in which a supernatural deity may act and intervene in His creation but from which we generally expect uniformity in creation so that those who first established the disciplines of scientists were Bible-affirming Christians who sought to “think God’s thoughts after Him.” My Biblicall-informed supernatural worldview is logically consistent, while your purely naturalistic worldview relies you to profess that nature can do supernatural things. Which one of us needs the course in critical thinking?

      • Nevermind that pure naturalism [[which modern science dogmatically adheres to] is logically self-defeating.

        For something that ” is logically self-defeating,” sure science seems to work pretty good. What better system do you have for investigating the material world around us, and using what we find out to improve our material wrll-being, to feed people better, to keep them healthy and make their physical labour easier?

      • Once again you display a complete and utter lack of any grasp of your opponent’s position, lindberg. You should *should *should know by now that creationists affirm a conditional uniformity of natural law [as described in my comments, had you bothered to read them], which entails the things you just mentioned. Is this the grasping extent of your mental acumen? Not for the first time, your drive-by trolling tempts me to ban you from commenting at all! Certainly no one could ague with such a decision since you continually refuse to consider what I’ve actually said in favor of parroting evo dogma I’ve refuted ad nauseam. This willful ignorance of creationist arguemnts is exactly why Bill Nye was so insufferably ill-prepared for his “debate of the century” with Ken Ham.

      • So… you’ve come to openly declare your credulous acceptance of pure naturalism and your bias against the supernatural. You certainly haven’t bothered to your point [if we are generous to allow that you’ve made one]. Do you intend to support your argument? At all?

    • funceval,

      You are clearly lost, sir. Most trolls don’t venture this way anymore. The tend to fare poorly.

      Now are you trying to make my point? A supernatural worldview may consistently affirm a largely unobserved supernatural deity. A purely natural worldview which invokes the supernatural is logically inconsistent.

      Thanks for playing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s