Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 9 results found
Work with your youth pastor and come up with a basic theology test. Collect the tests, and then look at them. The typical Christian kid is going to fail that test miserably. Hopefully that will help our youth leaders and parents to wake up to see that our kids don’t know more than “love Jesus and be good.”
How do we combat apathy within our youth? Number one, question them. Start forcing them to answer questions about what they believe and why they believe it. Introduce questions and challenges, and help them to see that they don’t know as much as they think they know.
To give a Mormon a biblical case for the Trinity, the first step is to show there is only one God. When making a biblical case for the Trinity, the first step is to show that the Scriptures clearly teach there is only one God. Passages like Deut. 6:4, Isaiah 43:10 and 44:6-8, and John 17:3 are very explicit about this point. However, the common Mormon response is to claim that there is only one true God of this earth—there is only one God that Mormons worship, although there are other gods. So, respond with the following questions:
Alan explains how Darwinism is controlled by a presupposition that makes it closed-minded and anti-science. Darwinists around the world celebrated the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth on February 12, 2010. Darwin parties will continue all year since November 22nd will also mark the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s landmark book, On the Origin of Species. It’s a momentous year for all things Darwin.
There are at least three things wrong with the idea that they don't. The view that science and religion don’t mix is guilty of at least three logical errors. First, it commits the either/or fallacy by asserting that a view is either scientific or religious. Design models have some evidential support. For example, we see the blending of science and religion in the existence of a Creator based on Big Bang cosmology as the beginning of the universe.
Ideas have consequences. And there are real consequences to the idea of evolution.
No. The fossil record provides no evidence for macroevolution.
Brett offers insight on the evidence--so the next time you hear about a major discovery for evolution, don't be intimidated. Why should we spend time on defining evolution (see “What is Evolution?”)? Here’s why. When we look at the evidence offered for macroevolution, there’s a huge, massive, gi-normous problem. Virtually every shred of evidence offered is evidence of microevolution. Change in finch beak size. Changing colors in peppered moths. Additional wings on fruit flies. Changing human genes.
Acts shows Mark can be dated in the 50s, and the undisputed early dating of other books confirms that the Jesus of the Gospels was not the result of a myth evolving over time. The so-called "search for the historic Jesus" is over one hundred years old. Virtually nothing discovered during that time undermines the Gospel accounts. There is no "new evidence" supporting the idea that the miracle-working Son of God was the result of an evolution of myth over a long period of time. To the contrary, recent discoveries have given more credibilit