2010-01-02

To the claim that disinfectants ‘trained’ superbugs to resist antibiotics, AiG notes that such does not prove molecules-to-man evolution, and that it may well be that the genetic code already existed among some of the population to resist the disinfectant, as a corruption of existing information. The disinfectant would have conferred an advantage over the others. In this case, loss of information would have occurred. Also, it is noted that natural selection cannot explain the origin of genetic information. Often research that claims to show evolution offers examples of the workings of natural selection (a concept creationists understand and research), and actually offers no support for the evolution of all life (a great amount of genetic information) from a single common ancestor (a small amount of genetic information). Finally, the discovery of Sinornithosaurus in China (a ‘bird-like’ dinosaur) is claimed to be ‘almost certainly feathered’ by evolutionists, showing their evolution-driven presuppositions despite the lack of evidence and the fact that similarity of the Sinornithosaurus to modern reptiles reflects the reptilian status of dinosaurs. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/01/02/news-to-note-01022010?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AIGDaily+%28Answers+in+Genesis+Daily+Articles%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

Chan posts an interesting article on blood in the human body. There is power in the blood

Responding to feedback and the accusation of ‘fact-fitting’ in contrast to ‘real’ scientists, Creation.com posts a reminder that the idea of the disinterested, objective scientist is a myth. [I would add that the secular sociology of science course I took during university agrees with Creation.com here, citing numerous examples including Watson and Crick in their pursuit of DNA, as well as different theories on the personal attachment scientists have to ‘make their thesis work’] http://creation.com/irrational-knuckle-brains

“Chad Brand says that Avatar is “anti-military, anti-non-green, anti-American (at least Bush and Reagan’s America), and anti-Custer.” This is a clever, short movie review from a theology professor at Boyce College and Southern Seminary. His conclusion: “I liked the film. I will probably watch it again. But I am not going to drink the Koolaid.” Read the rest here.” Brand talks about how the antagonists are depicted in monochromatic terms, versus the complexity of the protagonists. Cameron wants us to hate the Colonel, and we do. “I think Cameron could have done a better job depicting the Colonel and Parker. But maybe he could not bring himself to believe that such persons really are more subtle than he thinks they are. Maybe Cameron should live in the real world for awhile and have lunch with some real military people and even play cards with a few Republicans.” Chad Brand says Avatar is Anti-Custer

9Marks has a set of questions to consider for the new year. More Questions to Consider by Deepak Reju

Engwer talks about an interaction between two Christians and an atheist over the infancy narratives on the program Unbelievable?. i) The concept that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is vague, can result in infinite regress, and assumes without argument that the evidence we have isn’t extraordinary. ii) Matthew’s complex use of typology in the OT was not dishonest; it may not have the evidentiary significance of a non-typological prophetic fulfillment, but such methods were common in ancient Judaism, and to accuse him of dishonesty is unreasonable. iii) As to alleged parallels to the infancy narratives in non-Christian sources, even if we thought that the prominence of unusual births in fictional accounts casts doubt on the New Testament infancy narratives, we'd still have to go on to consider other factors, such as the earliness of the sources, their general credibility, and how other sources responded to the claims. The general credibility of accounts of unusual births is only one factor. iv) The atheist often redirected away from the topic of the virgin birth during the program, as many skeptics of the virgin birth do when their objections are shown to be inadequate. Skeptical Floundering On The Infancy Narratives

Atheists call creationists ‘kooks’, refusing to debate creationist Ph.D’s. Dawkins even said himself, “Yet when you look at it rationally there is not reason why those ideas shouldn't be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us that they shouldn't be.” Yet why won’t they debate? Dawkins quote is interesting in light of his reluctance to public, moderated debate. “why not take a few hours to show the rest of the world just how silly these "lackwits" really are?” Put up or shut up. Creationist Kooks Offer Debate Challenge

T-fan quotes a Romanist arguing that Sola Scriptura is unsound because Arians ‘could affirm every single verse of Scripture’ and so bishops had to define the Faith using an extra-biblical term homoousious, because Scripture was insufficient to resolve the dispute. He argues that the bishops are thus shown to have authority by apostolic succession, or their affirmation would carry no more authority than the Arian denial. T-fan, citing Athanasius, Augustine, Alexander of Alexandria, and others, notes that the Fathers themselves thought they refuted Arianism from scripture, putting the Romanist at odds with them. The primary sense of apostolic succession which the Arians lacked was not ordination, for they could trace that back, but in doctrine. They didn’t follow the teachings of the apostles in Scripture. T-fan offers this challenge: “find even one Christian (non-Arian, if Roman Catholics are calling Arians Christians these days) from Arius' birth until 100 years after Nicaea that says that the Arians "could affirm every single verse of Scripture" or couldn't be refuted from Scripture alone. More positively, the challenge is to find some writer in that time period who appealed to apostolic succession, as such, to refute the Arians: who said that the orthodox clergy had apostolic succession but the Arian clergy did not.” Arianism is Consistent with Scripture-. Some arguments:

• Of what is the Son a partaker? Not the Spirit, for the Spirit partakes of the Son. It must be the Father. If something externally provided by the Father, then it is not the Father, and He is no longer second to the Father, for something is between them. If the Son says that God is His own Father, it follows that what is partaken is not external but the essence of the Father. And if the essence of the Son is not the essence of the Father, then something is between them again.

• God is Maker, yet they say there was a time when His Framing Word and Wisdom were not, which is to say, that there was a time when God was not Maker, since he didn’t have the Word which is from Him, and yet that by which He frames is alien from Him and unlike His essence.

• How can all things be made through the Word, and without Him not anything is made, if the Son is Himself made?

• If the creation is ‘below’ God’s direct actions, and unworthy of Him, so that He needs an intermediary (i.e., the Son), how is God’s direct providence (e.g. not even a sparrow falls) not unworthy of Him?

• John 10:15: if the Father only in part knows the Son, then it is evident that the Son does not perfectly know the Father. But if it be wicked thus to speak, and if the Father perfectly knows the Son, it is plain that, even as the Father knows His own Word, so also the Word knows His own Father, of whom He is the Word.

• If whatever is spoken of God is spoken according to substance, then that which is said, "I and the Father are one," is spoken according to substance. Therefore there is one substance of the Father and the Son. Or if this is not said according to substance, then something is said of God not according to substance, and therefore we are no longer compelled to understand unbegotten and begotten according to substance. It is also said of the Son, "He thought it not robbery to be equal with God." We ask, equal according to what? For if He is not said to be equal according to substance, then they admit that something may be said of God not according to substance. Let them admit, then, that unbegotten and begotten are not spoken according to substance.

T-fan notes Atkinson suggesting that sola ecclesia (currently the Roman alternative to sola scriptura) be added to the five reformation solas. Church authority, however, must always be subservient to Scripture because human power always tends to corruption. http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/01/sola-ecclesia-reformation-maxim.html

Hays further interacts with a Romanist over baptism. i) Relying on baptism for assurance is sort of like the way some Jews relied on their biological relation to Abraham. ii) Where is the argument that when the priest administers baptism, he takes the place of Christ, and so Christ baptizes through the instrumentality of the priest? iii) If Christ is the baptizer, then why didn't he at least establish a dominical precedent by baptizing Jews and Gentiles during his earthly ministry? iv) We can be cognizant of our operating presuppositions and test them. v) The Romanist would have us avoid the ‘thicket of exegesis’ and substitute vague theological platitudes instead. The thicket of exegesis

Spurgeon: “You are meddling with Christ’s business, and neglecting your own when you fret about your lot and circumstances.You have been trying “providing” work and forgetting that it is yours to obey. Be wise and attend to the obeying, and let Christ manage the providing.” A Word for Worriers

Here’s a review of The Invention of Lying. It’s definitely a unique movie – and it certainly affirms the biblical truth about the disposition of man to God. The Blasphemy of The Invention of Lying- Give It a Second Look

“Suppose, in the encounter between doctor and child [in an abortion], the child won half of the time, and killed the doctor in self-defense—something he would have every right to do. Very few doctors would perform abortions. They perform them now only because of their absolute power over a small, fragile, helpless victim.” —Stephen D. Schwarz Abortion Ethics- When Might Makes Right

Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson is none to popular for selling his vote to protect the unborn in favour of attaining Medicaid for his state – only 17% favour the deal Nelson struck to vote for the bill, and if he were running today, polls show he would lose by a large margin. Go Big Red

T-fan writes, regarding a house found in Nazareth (“Israeli archaeologists said Monday that they have uncovered remains of the first dwelling in the northern city of Nazareth that can be dated back to the time of Jesus. ”), that if there were any skeptics out there who thought to themselves, "Nazareth wasn't inhabited in Jesus' day," (and I seem to recall one telling me that on a previous occasion) that excuse for not believing in Christ has been taken away (link). T-fan then quotes a skeptics [now somewhat embarrassing] skeptism. Nazareth Residence Found

Piper aims three times a day to use twitter to post a provocative sentence concerning the character of God, or Jesus, or building faith, or something helpful. He then says, don’t waste time on the web, and don’t vie for followers. Ask yourself – why do you do what you do? John Piper on Twitter