1/29/21

Expelled--Again by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=3655

Expelled--Again

by  Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

Two years after Ben Stein and Kevin Miller released the controversial movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Stein and Miller, 2008), which grossed nearly $7,700,000, the heated debate over discrimination towards those holding creationist beliefs continues. The Washington Post described astrophysicist Dr. Martin Gaskell as “uniquely qualified” for the position as director of the new, prestigious MacAdam Student Observatory at the University of Kentucky (UK). “He oversaw the design and construction of an observatory at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. He also advised UK during the building of the MacAdam facility” (Lovan, 2010). However, although his credentials placed him “breathtakingly above the other applicants,” it seems that his Christian faith caused him to be rejected for the position. He, therefore, sued the university, “claiming lost income and emotional distress.” U.S. District Judge Karl S. Forester, who rejected a motion from the university concerning going to trial, said, “There is no dispute that based on his application, Gaskell was a leading candidate for the position” (Lovan).

Ironically, Gaskell does not even consider himself a creationist and does not believe the Earth to be “a few thousand years old.” However, apparently threatened by a lecture he gave in 1997 in which he stated that evolution has “significant scientific problems” and contains “unwarranted atheistic assumptions and extrapolations,” science professors believed “his Christian faith could conflict with his duties as a scientist” (Lovan). How unfortunate that many scientists are so quick to jump to conclusions about others before gathering all of the evidence. It is hardly unexpected, considering that they have done the same thing by jumping to wild, outlandish, unscientific conclusions in holding to evolutionary theory despite all scientific evidence that stands against it. The evolutionists are so stressed about the creationists’ arguments that they are now expelling people who even appear to be creationists. Contrary to open-minded, academically free expression of scientific thought, this sort of censorship provides a real barrier to scientific progress. Creationists must be making an impact with many in the debate if the evolutionary community is becoming so hyperactive in its decisions.

REFERENCES

Lovan, Dylan (2010), “Scientist Alleges Religious Discrimination in KY,” The Washington Post, December 10, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/17/AR2010121701178.html.

Stein, Ben and Kevin Miller (2008), Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Premise Media).

Exceptional Spider Silk by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2150

Exceptional Spider Silk

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

To the average person, a spider’s web looks rather weak and flimsy. With the greatest of ease, a person can destroy a web. In only a second, the spider’s house is razed with the wave of a hand. Even Job’s uninspired friend, Bildad, testified of the fragileness of webs when he likened the unrighteous to those “whose trust is a spider’s web” (Job 8:14), who are leaning upon a house that easily perishes. So why are scientists increasingly mesmerized by the spider’s silk webbing?

Scientists are so enamored with spider silk because it has an “exceptional capacity to absorb kinetic energy” (Cunningham, 2007). Although it may not seem strong and tough from the vantage point of a human who easily can tear down a spider’s web, pound-for-pound, the silk from certain kinds of spiders is five times stronger than steel. What’s more, it can stretch 30 percent farther than the stretchiest known nylon, and is twice as flexible. Scientists have discovered that spider silk can even stretch 40 percent beyond its original length without breaking. In fact, due to its amazing strength and flexibility, it has been said that you could stop a jumbo jet in mid-flight with a spider web made of silk only one centimeter thick.

Since harvesting silk from spiders is impractical, scientists are attempting to make synthetic “spider silk” that could be used for countless things, including bulletproof vests, bridge suspension cables, and artificial tendons. Scientists especially covet the silk’s “exceptional capacity to absorb kinetic energy” and are hoping to copy what they call its “winning formula.” How have scientists fared thus far? In truth, even “[t]he best industrial fibers don’t absorb as much kinetic energy as spider silk does.... Despite years of research, scientists still can’t make a material as tough as the silk found within a spider web” (Cunningham, emp. added). Zoologist Chris Holland admitted that synthetic fibers “can’t even come close to” equaling the amazing qualities of spider-produced silk (as quoted in Cunningham).

What explanation do scientists give for the origin of spiders and their exceptional silk? To what do we owe this “winning formula” that intelligent scientists have been attempting to copy for years? According to Holland, “[s]piders...evolved the capacity to spin silk” (as quoted in Cunningham, emp. added). The mastermind behind the unequalled, “energy-efficient, high-performance” fibers in spider silk is, allegedly, mindless evolution. Truly, “the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men” (1 Corinthians 1:25). “For every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God” (Hebrews 3:4).

REFERENCE

Cunningham, Aimee (2007), “Taken for a Spin,” Science News, April 14, [On-line], URL: http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20070414/bob8.asp.

Evolutionists Want It Both Ways by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=728

Evolutionists Want It Both Ways

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Astronomers from more than 30 research institutions in 15 countries are working together to select a site for a giant telescope that they hope will read TV or radio signals from alien civilizations. Slated to cost one billion dollars, the Square Kilometer Array, or SKA, would be the world’s most powerful radio telescope. Speaking at a conference of the International Society for Optical Engineering in Orlando, Florida, project astronomers said they hope to find “immediate and direct evidence of life elsewhere in the Universe” (“Sites Under...,” 2006).

Despite this bold venture, the scientists admit that “such a search would have distinct limitations, to be sure.” “Distinct limitations”? Like what? For one, the scientists “aren’t sure how to recognize such signals, if they do turn up. The hope is that the signals would consist of organized patterns suggestive of intelligence, and not attributable to any known celestial sources” (“Sites Under...,” 2006, emp. added). Wait a minute. Evolutionary scientists are renowned for their condescending ridicule of creationists because those who believe in God assert that evidence of intelligent design in the Universe is proof of an Intelligent Designer. No, the evolutionists counter, the Universe got here by accident through random chance, mindless trial and error, and the blind, mechanistic forces of nature. They maintain that life on Earth owes its ultimate origin to dead, non-purposive, unconscious, non-intelligent matter. Yet they are perfectly willing to squander one billion dollars on a telescope with the speculative idea that solid proof—hard evidence—for the existence of alien life would reside in otherwise undecipherable radio or TV signals that convey “organized patterns suggestive of intelligence.” [NOTE: One is reminded of NASA’s Viking mission to Mars in the mid-seventies in which scientists eagerly declared evidence for life on Mars based on initial photos that appeared to show a “B” or even a face on a rock (cf. “‘Life’ on Mars,” 2006; Warren and Flew, 1976, pp. 112,156). Such judgments soon were deemed premature and incorrect.] Atheistic evolutionists want it both ways: organized patterns prove the existence of life and organized patterns do not prove the existence of God. Philosophers and logicians refer to such duplicitous posturing as irrational and “logical contradiction.” Apparently, evolutionists call it “science.”

REFERENCES

“‘Life’ on Mars” (2006), [On-line], URL: http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/stu/mars_life.html.

“Sites Under Review for Telescope that Could Detect Alien TV” (2006), World Science, July 10, [On-line], URL: http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/060711_ska.htm.

Warren, Thomas B. and Antony Flew (1976), The Warren-Flew Debate (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).

"THE GOSPEL OF MARK" He Has Done All Things Well (7:31-37) by Mark Copeland

 

                          "THE GOSPEL OF MARK"

                 He Has Done All Things Well (7:31-37)

INTRODUCTION

1. I would like for you to ask yourself:  What has Jesus done for you...?
   a. Anything?
   b. Something?

2. If Jesus has done anything for you, how would you describe it...?
   a. More than you expected?
   b. Less than you expected?

[If less than expected, keep it mind as we begin reading in Mk 7:31
about Jesus healing a deaf mute...]

I. THE NARRATIVE

   A. THE JOURNEY TO THE SEA OF GALILEE...
      1. Jesus left the region of Tyre and Sidon - Mk 7:31
         a. Where he had healed the daughter of the Syro-Phoenician woman
         b. A woman blessed for her faith - Mk 7:24-30
      2. He traveled through the region of Decapolis - Mk 7:31
         a. So called after ten cities in the area, mostly SE of the Sea of Galilee
         b. Damascus, Raphana, Hippos, Abila [or Canatha], Gadara,
            Scythopolis, Pella, Dion, Gerasa, and Philadelphia [Amman]
         c. Predominately Gentile and Hellenistic in their culture
         d. Where the man healed of legions of demons proclaimed Christ - Mk 5:20
      3. Matthew's gospel adds a few details - Mt 15:29-31
         a. Jesus went to a mountain and sat down
         b. Many lame, blind, mute and maimed were brought and healed
         c. The multitude marveled and glorified the God of Israel(these are likely Gentiles)

   B. JESUS HEALS A DEAF MUTE...
      1. People bring a deaf mute to Jesus and beg Him to heal him - Mk 7:32
      2. Aside from the multitude, Jesus begins the healing - Mk 7:33-34
         a. Putting His fingers in the deaf mute's ears, spitting, and touching his tongue
         b. Looking to heaven, sighing, and saying "Ephphatha" (Aramaic for "Be opened")
      3. The healing is instantaneous - Mk 7:35
         a. His ears are opened
         b. He begins to speak plainly

   C. JESUS' REQUEST AND THE CROWD'S RESPONSE...
      1. He commanded them to tell no one, but they widely proclaim it
         - Mk 7:36; cf. Mk 1:44-45
      2. They are astonished, saying "He has done all things well" - Mk 7:37

[This is a detailed and rather unusual account of one of Jesus' miracles
of healing.  The response of the crowd is also worthy of note.  Allow me
therefore to offer...]

II. SOME OBSERVATIONS

   A. REGARDING THE HEALING...
      1. Jesus may have been using sign language to explain what He was doing
      2. The fingers in the ears - "Something will be done for your ears...and I will do it."
      3. The touch of the tongue - "Something will be done for your tongue...and I will do it."
      4. The spit - His intention was to heal, as saliva was thought to have medicinal properties
      5. The look to heaven - indicating His help came from above
      6. The sigh - the sympathizing Jesus, taking the man's condition to heart - cf. Isa 53:4
      -- William Hendriksen (Baker's New Testament Commentary)

   B. REGARDING THE DECLARATION...
      1. "He has done all things well"
         a. He astonished those who saw His miracles - Mk 7:37
         b. He astonished those who heard His teachings - Mk 1:22; 6:2
         c. This is before His amazing death, resurrection, and ascension to heaven!
      2. Has Jesus done all things well for you?
         a. Given you rest for your soul? - Mt 11:28-30
         b. Saved you from you sins? - Mk 16:15-16
         c. Given you the peace the world cannot give? - Jn 14:27
      3. If not, why not?
         a. Could it be for lack of faith? - cf. Mk 6:5-6
         b. Could it be your heart is restricted? - cf. 2Co 6:11-13
            1) The Corinthians restricted themselves from receiving Paul's love
            2) Might we be guilty of doing the same in receiving Jesus' love and power?
      4. As God has often asked His people:
         a. "Is anything too hard for the Lord?" - Gen 18:14
         a. "Has the Lord's arm been shortened?" - Num 11:23
         b. "Is My hand shortened at all that it cannot redeem?" - Isa 50:2
         c. "Or have I no power to deliver?" - Isa 50:2
         d. "Is the Spirit of the LORD restricted?" - Mic 2:7
      -- Think about these things, if your spiritual life is vapid!

CONCLUSION

1. Jesus has certainly done all things well...
   a. "He changed sunset into sunrise." - Clement of Alexandria
   b. "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation..." - 2Co 5:17

2. But has He done all things well for you...?
   a. If your spiritual life is insipid, remember His words to the Laodiceans - Re 3:14-22
   b. It is most likely you have not been following Jesus as fervently as you should

   "What good is having someone who can walk on water if you don't
   follow in his footsteps?" - Author Unknown

Jesus, who has done all things well, stands ready to open your eyes to
see the beauty of His salvation, to open your mouth to proclaim the glory of His redemption...! 
 
Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

Celebrating a Sinful Lifestyle by Ken Weliever, The Preacherman

 

https://thepreachersword.com/2019/05/02/celebrating-a-sinful-lifestyle/

Celebrating a Sinful Lifestyle

“I stand before my family, friends and graduating class today to say that I am proud to be a gay son of God,” announced Matthew Easton in his valedictorian speech at Brigham Young University last Friday night.

The “coming out” announcement which came as a surprise to the majority of the 10,000 in attendance, including some family members, was received with cheers and applause that echoed through the Marriott Center.

Easton smiled, paused, and waited for the applause to subside. Later he said. “Four years ago, it would have been impossible for me to imagine that I would come out to my entire college. It is a phenomenal feeling. And it is a victory for me in and of itself.”

Ironically the church of which he is a member, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and BYU consider same-sex marriage to be a “serious transgression.” Until recently Mormons involved in homosexual unions were treated as apostates and subject to excommunication from the church.

Easton, however, considers himself a Christian. “I am not broken,” he declared. “I am loved and important to the plan of our great creator. Each of us are.”

In an interview with The Washington Post, Easton said he had been inspired by Pete Buttigieg, the Democratic mayor of South Bend, Ind., who announced his candidacy for president. The mayor, an openly practicing homosexual and married to a man, has repeatedly spoken of his faith and believes there is nothing contradictory about being a Christian and engaging in homosexual relationships.

Buttigieg recently spoke to the LGBTQ Victory Fund, in which he condemned Vice President, Mike Pence on his views regarding morality.

“That’s the thing I wish the Mike Pences of the world would understand: That if you have a problem with who I am, your quarrel is not with me,” Buttigieg said. “Your quarrel, sir, is with my creator.”

A reporter’s observation on Easton’s speech wrote, “A private conquest, the speech also marked a notable chapter in a searching public debate about faith, sexuality and generational change.”

“My generation, and even more so the generation after me, we’re changing the way we talk about our identity and who we are,” Easton said. “But the more that I’ve understood my relationship with God, the more authentic I’ve been able to be and the more true to myself I’ve felt.”

Stories like Matthew Easton’s are becoming more frequent. And, as is always the case, the liberal new media celebrates and applauds the “courage” of those admitting their homosexuality.

Yes, times are changing. 50 years ago everyone knew homosexuality was a sin. Society and the media regarded it as the perversion that it is. For 5,000 years the Judeo-Christian ethic of marriage between one man and one woman was largely accepted.

Now, we come to the point where homosexuality and same-sex marriage is not only accepted but celebrated. It reminds me of the culture in the prophet Jeremiah’s day. “Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? No! They were not at all ashamed; Nor did they know how to blush” (Jer 6:15).

What has changed in our world?

Surely not the Bible, nor God’s description of sin. While Easton, Buttigieg, and others in the LGBTQ community presume to know God’s view of homosexuality. They are mistaken.

In an era when our public schools, universities, the mass media and the cultural elite are celebrating sinful lifestyles, we need to be reminded of what God has revealed to us about morality and marriage.

The New Testament not only condemns homosexuality but speaks of it as being a perversion. When Paul recounted the Gentiles’ rejection of God, he described it in these words:

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator — who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (Romans 1:24-27)

Sexual impurity. Degrading. Shameful. Unnatural. Indecent. Perversion. I think these words pretty much describes God’s view of homosexual relations. Instead of trying to be true to ourselves and whatever confused and perverted feelings we possess, this generation needs to be true to God. To His Word. And His commands.

To say, “I’m proud to be a gay son of god” is a gross misrepresentation. One might as well say, “I’m proud to be a fornicating son of god” Or an “idolatrous son of god.” Or a “stealing son of god.” Or a “cheating son of god.” What’s the difference? All of these sins and more are listed along with homosexuality in 1 Cor. 6:9-11. Unrepented sins will exclude the sinner from the Kingdom of God.

Friends and brethren, let us not applaud what God disapproves. Nor celebrate what the Bible condemns.

–Ken Weliever, The Preacherman

A TRANSLITERATION THAT LEADS TO CONFUSION by steve finnell

 

https://steve-finnell.blogspot.com/2016/

A TRANSLITERATION THAT LEADS TO CONFUSION by steve finnell


Transliterate Defined: To change (letters, words, etc.) into corresponding characters of another alphabet or language. 

To transliterate is not translating.

Mark 16:16 He who has believed and been baptized shall be saved...(NASB) The word baptized is a transliterations used here. Baptize is not a translated word.

Examples of Mark 16:16 that have been translated as opposed to having been transliterated.

1. Mark 16:16 He who has believed and has been immersed, will be saved....(The Better Version of The New Testament by Chester Estes)

2. Mark 16:16 Whoever trusts and is immersed will be saved...( CJB Complete Jewish Bible )

3. Mark 16:16 He who believes and is immersed shall be saved...(TLV Tree of Life)

4. Mark 16:16 He who believes and is immersed will be saved..(WMB World Messianic Bible)

5. Mark 16:16 He who believes and is immersed shall be saved... (TEG The Everlasting Gospel)

There are no translations of Mark 16:16 that read, He who believes and is sprinkled or poured shall be saved..

The fact that a trained professional says sprinkling and pouring are modes of baptism does make it true. 

There are not modes of baptism, there is just immersion in water.

Handling Our Anger by Richard Mansel

 

https://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Mansel/Richard/Dale/1964/anger.html

Handling Our Anger

Imagine that you have spent all day cleaning your house for an important dinner party and you have everything spotless just minutes before your guests are to arrive. Then you hear in the kitchen the sound of tiny feet and see that your three-year-old has tracked mud all over the kitchen tile. You explode. What happens next is anger. It can become, as someone has written, a wild dog that can be tamed for a while but then we can unleash it and no one is immune to its fury.

Few things can tear apart the fabric of a family like anger. It has led many to divorce court, permanent alienation and even incarceration. How many relatives have not spoken to one another for years because of anger? The pain is pervasive throughout our society. We must deal with anger or its ravages will consume us.

There are four ways that we can deal with anger.

First, we can repress it. Denial, however, is a dangerous practice because we do not always know when the kettle will blow. A basketball held under water will suddenly pop to the surface and splash water on everyone around. Repressed anger can have similar results.

Second, we can ignore our anger and pretend it does not exist. Unresolved anger, however, just sits in our hearts and eats away at us and often gives us a cruel, bitter nature.

Third, we can unleash it on whoever happens to be there at the time. Graveyards are filled with the victims of this approach.

Finally, we can learn the message of Scripture on how to resolve anger. "A fool uttereth all his mind: but a wise man keepeth it in till afterwards" (Proverbs 29:11). "Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath ... Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you" (Ephesians 4:26,31,32).

This is the way to deal with anger. Is not life too short to lose a loved one because of anger? We must control anger or it will control us.

Richard Mansel

Published in The Old Paths Archive
(http://www.oldpaths.com)