Archive for the ‘ Science ’ Category

Genesis: Paradise Lost in 3-D … My Review

If you have followed my blog long, searched through my all of my posts, and/or know me personally, you know I do not subscribe to the modern teaching of evolution.

I have many reasons.

Therefore, it probably should not surprise anyone that last night my wife and I went to see the movie Genesis: Part 1 – Paradise Lost in 3-D.

Do I need to mention spoilers? I mean, if you have read Genesis chapter 1, you know how it goes. If you have ever looked into Answers in Genesis, you probably know what they think about Creation. And AiG supplied many of their scientists and speakers for this film.

The Film

Genesis: Paradise Lost in 3-D was created largely on a computer to show an idea of what the creation of everything looked like based on the Bible – specifically Genesis 1. The stylized rendition was punctuated with “live commentary” of scientists and speakers about what the Bible and science have to say about the origins of everything and, especially, us – humans. Much of this cast consisted of people who work for AiG, but it included other scientists, professors, evangelists, and pastors. While focused on Genesis chapter one, other passages were included, and a lot of science was included throughout.

And, yes, dinosaurs make appearances!

My thoughts

Overall, I really enjoyed the film. The imagery was awe inspiring, and the science was clearly explained mixed in with good theology.

I do not completely agree with everything that AiG teaches (I differ slightly on the age of the Earth and therefore the historical timeline of humanity, but only slightly), but by and large the science and logic seems reasonable from them and those associated with this film.

They make fairly solid arguments against evolutionary theory, with some humor and compassion thrown in, and it is presented in a compelling way.

My biggest complaint against the film is with the 3-D. There are times that effect is not as accurately applied, causing some blurriness and/or ghosting (double-imaging). On a smaller screen, it might not be as noticeable, but when 30 feet tall it is jarring.

However, when you consider that this was not a James Cameron or major Disney production (the filmmaker, Ralph Strean, did work for Disney at one time, though) with a relatively small, crowdsourced budget, and only a few dozen people working on it, it is amazing what they did accomplish.

There are many elements of this film that the 3-D makes amazingly beautiful and engaging. At one point, I even felt the impulse to attempt to wipe water off of my glasses! And when you consider that

Therefore, if you easily suffer from motion sickness or get headaches from 3-D movies, avoid the 3-D showing.

That being said, I would suggest checking this movie out, if you get the chance.

Even if you completely disagree with their premise, the imagery alone makes it worth it.

Real Life X-Men Stories … or Why Evolutionists Should Be Pro-Life

Welcome back, folks!

READY FOR SOME CONTROVERSY!

In my last video, we discussed the “unanswerable question” for “anti-abortionists” from Patrick Tomlinson.

Today, I am looking at something a little different. (And I am a little hesitant to share this theory, as I do not actually believe it but it could take hold …)

We know why Christians are pro-life. The biggest reason being we believe we were created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27, 5:1) and that we are fearfully and wonderfully made, knit together in the womb (Psalm 139:13-16).

Well, I want to argue for why atheists, or rather evolutionists, should be pro-life … or at the very least anti-abortion.

Seeing X-Men played out

In the X-Men comics, cartoons, and movies, we see an ongoing battle between regular, ol’ humans and mutants. The mutant humans are being fought because their mutant genes have given them super-human powers. They are the next evolutionary step, and the current strain of humanity is trying to keep them from taking over.

What if we are seeing this in real life?

The teaching on evolution is that there are missing links between different types of creatures. Such led to the rise of humans from an ancient ape-like creature (not to be confused with current monkeys and apes that would have come from the same ancestor). This takes several generations if not hundreds of thousands to millions of years.

There is a theory that the missing links may never be found, because perhaps evolution happens in bursts, virtually overnight (in the grand scheme).

Another theory running around is that perhaps human evolution has stalled or stopped.

What if that is not the case?

In Iceland, it is being claimed that they have nearly eradicated Down Syndrome. In truth, they have not, instead they have been aborting pregnancies in which Down Syndrome is detected.

My question centers on this: What if Down Syndrome, Autism, and other such anomalies in humanity are not so much defects as the “missing link” in the next stage of evolution?

What if we are seeing the evidence of evolution, those hiccups that evolutionists tell us could happen, and as a people we are wiping them out …

… we are literally living out the X-Men solution?

Think about it: many of these people tend to be savants at something or many things. There could be a jump in intelligence and other qualities of humanity.

If this were true, evolution has stalled due to our own decisions.

If this were true, perhaps evolutionists should be just as pro-life as Christians … or at least anti-abortion!

What do you think?

Is my responding thought experiment a valid option?

Am I being just as silly as others?

While this is a very serious question and dialogue to have, this is a somewhat silly approach. But it is worth asking.

At the very least, I may help the pro-life cause just a touch.

What are your thoughts?

Fallacious Choices? Am I Pro-Life?

Welcome back, interwebbers!

As we come close to the close of 40 Days for Life, it is fitting that I should focus on the topic of abortion and the like.

Honestly, this could be a long conversation covering several areas in this topic.

Today, however, I going to focus on one thing:

Choosing Which Life Is Greater?

Author Patrick S. Tomlinson feels he has asked a question, a thought experiment, “that shut down the whole anti-abortion argument.” (WARNING: unbecoming language used throughout the article)

This author feels that pro-lifers (or, as he calls them, anti-abortion) reveal they are not really pro-life, or perhaps they are inconsistent in their beliefs. And, after years of asking this question, not a single pro-lifer has truthfully and adequately answered this question.

My first thought is, “Who has he been asking?” Because I find this relatively easy to answer. And I know I am far from alone.

However, here is his question:

For some unimportant reason, you are in a fertility clinic, when the building catches fire. As you are about to run out, you hear screaming.

You run back in and find the room where the screaming is emanating. When you open the door you see a 5-year-old child on one side, fire in the middle, and a container holding 1000 viable embryos. (Just assume the container is able to preserve the embryos indefinitely.) You know you only can save one.

Which do you choose?

His argument is that if you choose the child, you prove you are not really pro-life, because you allow all of those embryos – potential humans – to die. If you choose the embryos, you are a monster for letting a child burn.

My initial response is this: Thanks for admitting those embryos are alive!

In connection with this, he and others assert that scientists and politicians can not agree when life begins.

However, all embryologists and many biologists agree that life begins at conception.

  1. There is DNA for a distinct human life.
  2. Check any biology textbook: a cell is a living thing, so they are alive.

The debate then becomes, “But does it have a soul?”

I would argue, yes! Based on:

  • Psalm 139:13-16 — We were formed in the womb and are fearfully and wonderfully made;
  • Jeremiah 1:5 — This prophet was chosen before he was even conceived, demonstrating his soul already existed at fertilization. This can be applied to all humans.

As to my answer:

I would save the 5-year-old child.

Does this prove I am not pro-life?

Not at all. In fact, I mourn the loss of those embryos, and I trust God to take care of those lost embryos in His way. But as Christians we also are called to ease suffering.

This child was screaming. Further, being a fertility clinic, this child probably has parents who were there, so I am also helping those parents not to lose a child they already have.

If we change the scenario, maybe my response would be different.

What if I was on a space station above earth or on ship to a new human colony, and the future of the human race depended on those 1000 embryos. I would probably save the embryos.

But this shows the major issue with this question: It is avoiding the point, and it does not show whether a person is truly pro-life.

It is one of those impossible situations in which any choice is not ideal.

If I were on a bus about to go over the edge of a bridge, I would save the first person closest to me. I would not look over the other 36 people on the bus and try to decide who to choose, I would just grab who was closest. I am not responsible for those others, especially if I only have time to save one. No one would question my convictions (except perhaps loved ones of the others on the bus, but most would understand).

Likewise, being in such a situation as this question suggests does not demonstrate that someone is not truly pro-life. It is the complex question fallacy, begging the question. It is basically asking, “Why do you want to let innocents die?” without properly considering other options that are clearly available.

So, what do you think?

Did I answer the question?

How would you answer?

 

I Gotta Have Faith: Whose Fool Are You?

Welcome back, people of the internet!

Today’s topic: FAITH!

Why?

Recently, I have heard several people – including Richard Dawkins, AronRa (an atheist apologist?), Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye the Science Guy – all call faith in general, with Christians in particular, foolish.

These people claim that Christians believe with a blind faith, that they do not believe in the Bible or God for any good reason, but just because that is what they were told to believe.

Is this true?

What is faith?

According to Hebrews 11:1 (ESV):

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

So, what does this mean?

Basically, faith is trusting and believing something based on evidence. Something that is not seen is believed because there are things we can see and test that support it.

A popular example is a chair.

The chair looks sturdy. I have seen other chairs hold people up. Therefore, I have faith this chair will hold me up.

How do I know your faith is true?

Live it out. Show me. Sit on the chair. Show your faith by sitting.

Another example is a compass.

We believe a compass points north, because we have seen so many compasses point north.

(Though, it is possible a compass can be manipulated by magnets …)

“Ah,” you may say, “But that is science!”

Conviction of things unseen …

What evidence do we see of not seeing things in science?

A lot!

What about black holes?

We have never seen black holes, because they literally eat light. So, how do we know they exist? We have evidence they are there.

An interesting example from the past few years is the Higgs boson.

The Higgs boson is, essentially, what gives matter mass (the ability to have weight and substance). It was theorized using mathematics. The so-called “God particle” (actually, the “Oh my God particle”, from a note scribbled by a physicist) was officially discovered by slamming atoms together in the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) and using the resulting mathematical probabilities to “see” this “thing”.

In other words, it was seen through the symbols of mathematics.

It was not actually seen with eyes. Rather, it was predicted (hoped for) and then proved through mathematics. We used these symbols to express the evidence of what we cannot see to prove (have conviction) that it is there.

In the math.

Scientists use written symbols to find evidence of things unseen.

Sound familiar?

You could say I have faith that people have faith, even when they are “faithless.” Because I see the evidence.

They say “These words made out of symbols and numbers tell me this should be here, and I am going to believe it because all of the other math checks out, too.”

So, why do we as Christians believe the Bible?

Because we have these words that tell us about Jesus.

Some of you may remember the Four Core Facts I covered a few years ago. What does this have to do with anything?

The Four Core Facts:

  1. The Crucifixion (and Resurrection) of Jesus Christ
  2. The Despair of the Disciples
  3. The Change in the Disciples (Their despair becoming willingness to die for the truth of #1)
  4. The Conversion of Paul

If you are willing to objectively look at this evidence, you can see the evidence for the truth of God and His Son, Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ.

That evidence includes that Jesus quoted the Old Testament, which we know existed before He was born, He claimed it was about Him, and then He claimed He would die and raise again.

And He did it! Thus validating what He said.

In fact, this is the ultimate evidence. Paul himself (you know, one of the most successful evangelists for the Church, having planted so many throughout the Roman Empire) said this is all that needed to be preached! (1 Corinthians 1:22-23, 2:1-2)

It could be argued that the Church itself is the biggest evidence.

Jesus proved it Himself.

So we do not believe it “Just because,” but because Jesus said He would die and come back and did.

One of many points of evidence of this kind of faith is Abraham.

God called Abraham to sacrifice his son. Some call this barbaric, but it really is not.

Abraham and his wife were way too old to have children, but God said “You will have a son.”

When God then called him to sacrifice this son, I can guarantee you that he thought something like, “Well, you said I would have a son through whom you would multiply my descendants, and here he is. You could easily bring him back to life, so though I may not like it, I will obey.”

God did not raise Isaac back to life (He did not need to), but He did do it with His own Son!

So there is faith: “I have seen the evidence. I may not see God. I may have seen Jesus Himself. I may not be able to see everything the Apostles and other disciples saw, but I see the written evidence.

People just do not want to accept the evidence.

So, whose fool are you?

Do have the foolish faith of a Christain or the foolish faith of those who say there is no God? (1 Corinthians 1-2)

I still have faith in science, even with a lot of people who do not believe the Bible, because the math and the science checks out and proves the validity.

I also have faith that God’s Word is true.

Myths and Endless Genealogies?

Discover the everlasting wisdom of God through some of the thoughts at Proverbial Thought!

If you have followed my blog for a while, or read up recently, you probably know that I fall under the category of “Young-Earth Creationist”. I have plenty of scientific, philosophical, and biblical reasons for holding this view.

Today I want to focus for a brief moment on something that is more of a theological food for thought.

Science, Myth, or Something Else?

The funny thing about Evolution, specifically Darwinian evolution, is that we are generally taught as fact that the Universe is about 14 billion years old, the earth is about 4 billions years old, life on earth has existed and been evolving for about 2 billion years, we evolved from an ape-like creature which evolved from something else that evolved from something else that evolved all the way back to the first single-celled organism.

Yet, we have no definitive proof of any of this. There is a lot of evidence for a lot of things, but since a lot of it has not been and currently can not be directly observed (i.e. how the Universe came to be, the origin of life, one animal kind becoming another animal kind) it all comes down to worldview and faith.

On all sides.

The thing Christians have is a book (or, technically, a collection of books) with the claim that God inspired the very words (a debate for another time) in which He claims to have not only seen how all things happened but caused them to happen and in which He made claims about the future, most of which have come true and the rest are yet to happen.

Instead, we find many churches and Christians listening to atheistic scientific theories full endless cosmological and biological connections with little or no need for a Creator.

It might sound like a call to blind faith, but I encourage you to study the evidence and the arguments. Then look again at this question:

Who do you trust: men who were not there and have to keep changing their theories, or a God who claims to have been their and caused it all and does not change?

. . . so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith. The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.
1 Timothy 1:3b-7

Science and other things

I am diligently working on several things for upcoming blog entries, but in the meantime here is something from Bob Blincoe, director of Frontiers Missions, about the origins of science. I strongly suggest you read it. It is kind of interesting, if you ask me!

“How and Where Science Originated” (<— Click that!)

I also attended a talk by Christopher Yuan yesterday. I will be posting some of his points here in the future (after I polish my notes a little!). Some of his points reminded me of a couple of my posts (found here and here), so you will not be reading too much that I have not said before!

Much love and blessings!

Daniel