Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 147 results found
Tonight’s the night! Join me right here, on Google+, or on YouTube at 6:30 p.m. (PT) to see the live video feed of “Shattering the Icons of Evolution.” I’ll be talking about how to recognize and respond to the different categories that arguments for macroevolution fall into: exaggerated extrapolations, egregious errors, and equivocal evidence.
The following is a rundown of today's podcast, annotated with links that were either mentioned on the show or inspired by it: Commentary: Dreaming of What Heaven Is Like (0:00)
Evolutionists love to point to vestigial structures in the biological realm as evidence for evolution. The argument goes like this: Some organisms contain structures that were once functional in their evolutionary past but have now become useless (or almost useless). In The Greatest Show on Earth, Richard Dawkins writes, “Vestigial eyes are evidence of evolution. Given that a cave salamander lives in perpetual darkness so has no use for eyes, why would a divine creator nevertheless furnish it with dummy eyes, clearly related to eyes, but non-functional?”
One of the ways to be a good ambassador for Christ is to be a good listener. Oftentimes, we are so busy trying to win the argument that we fail to listen to the person making the argument. I believe that we would be much more effective if we would just stop talking and start listening. It has been my experience that if you listen to an atheist long enough, they will give you the rope to hang their arguments with.
Many atheists don’t like the term “atheist.” They take atheism to be just the default position. I’ve even heard some atheists state that atheism is not really a belief at all. Rather, they assert it is simply a lack of belief.
Our young people face an unprecedented assault on their faith. It seems to come at them from every side. One area that is effectively used by the enemy is social media. On media like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, it is very easy for people to share rhetorically powerful posts that can leave young Christians scrambling to find an answer.
Here’s a challenge I received: No-one can “validate” his/her own religion. Likewise, no-one can “invalidate” any other religion. I believe in some type of god/gods, but I choose not to associate that belief with any specific religious teachings, because I've never felt qualified to refute the equally unprovable beliefs of other cultures. You can’t claim anyone’s beliefs to be “right” or “wrong” when it’s all based on conjecture.
One of my favorite things to talk about is the evidence for intelligent design. In particular, I’m fascinated by the work of Stephen Meyer in Darwin’s Doubt and Signature in the Cell. When I speak about intelligent design to secular audiences, there is always some pushback.
Jehovah’s Witnesses commonly refer to modern translations of the Bible as “Lord Bibles.” It is often used as a pejorative. They claim that so-called “Lord Bibles” remove the name of Jehovah more than 7,000 times and replace it with the word Lord. Only they have the true Bible, because their New World Translation (NWT) uses the name Jehovah. All other versions are rejected because they’re thought to be unreliable.
Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that they alone are God’s chosen witnesses to the world. As justification for their self-designation, they cite Isaiah 43:10. It says: “You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.”