4/29/15

From Gary... Demas, Mark and dreams






The pictures above are of the famous Banbo rainbow bridge in Seoul, South Korea.  I confess, I spent WAY TO MUCH TIME looking at them.  I don't really know WHY, but something about this bridge fascinated me!!!  The beauty of this world can be truly enticing and after this episode of intense viewing, I understand a bit more about one unusual character in the New Testament...

Colossians, Chapter 4 (WEB)
14 Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas greet you. 

Philemon (WEB)
 23  Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, greets you,  24 as do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my fellow workers.

2 Timothy, Chapter 4 (WEB)
  6  For I am already being offered, and the time of my departure has come.  7 I have fought the good fight. I have finished the course. I have kept the faith.  8 From now on, there is stored up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will give to me on that day; and not to me only, but also to all those who have loved his appearing.  9 Be diligent to come to me soon,  10 for Demas left me, having loved this present world, and went to Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, and Titus to Dalmatia.  11 Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for service.

Some people begin wonderfully in life and end badly. So it is with Demas.  However, it does NOT have to be that way.  Mark, who had deserted Paul (Acts 15:38) became useful, once again.  If you have failed God in some way, there is always hope - Think of Mark and NOT DEMAS.

Somehow, this picture says it all...




For more information about Demas, I refer you to the following..
Demas

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2013/08/15/Demas-Lover-of-This-Present-World.aspx#Article

4/28/15

From Mark Copeland... "A CLOSER WALK WITH GOD" Blessings & Responsibilities Of Being A Christian



                        "A CLOSER WALK WITH GOD"

           Blessings & Responsibilities Of Being A Christian

INTRODUCTION

1. Every person has some big events in life (for example:  birth,
   graduation, marriage, death)

2. But the most important event for anyone is becoming a Christian!
   a. Why?  Because it affects both you and others for ETERNITY
   b. Unfortunately, many people become Christians and do not really
      appreciate it until late in life, if ever
   c. But our service for Christ would be more productive and
      infinitely more enjoyable if we began to grasp the true
      significance of being Christians, and as such, the children of
      God

3. This lesson is the first in a series designed to encourage and
   instruct one to have "A Closer Walk With God," and to be more
   fruitful in our service as disciples of Jesus Christ

[To help motivate us in fulfilling this goal, let's summarize just a 
few of the blessings and responsibilities we have as Christians...]

I. GOD AS OUR HEAVENLY FATHER - 1Jn 3:1

   A. CONSIDER THE BLESSING OF HAVING GOD AS OUR FATHER...
      1. He is the source of every good and perfect gift from above
         - Jm 1:17; Mt 7:11
      2. He provides us comfort in all our afflictions - 2Co 1:3-4
      3. When needed, in love He chastises us - He 12:5-11
      4. He has promised never to forsake us - He 13:5-6

   B. YET, THERE ARE RESPONSIBILITIES FOR HAVING GOD AS OUR FATHER...
      1. We must SUBMIT to God - Jm 4:7
         a. By submitting to His Word
         b. By submitting to His providential workings in our lives 
            - 1Pe 5:6-11
      2. We must also DRAW NEAR to God - Jm 4:8
         a. Just as an earthly father delights when his children want
            to draw near to him, so does God - cf. Mt 23:37
         b. We draw nearer to God by "cleansing our hands" and
            "purifying our hearts" - Jm 4:8
            1) That is, by obtaining forgiveness and then strengthening
               our resolve to serve Him
            2) For the Christian, this involves REPENTANCE, CONFESSION
               OF SINS, AND PRAYER - Ac 8:22; 1Jn 1:9

II. JESUS CHRIST AS OUR LORD AND HIGH PRIEST - 1Co 8:6; He 4:14

   A. THINK FOR A MOMENT ABOUT THIS BLESSING...
      1. He who is our "Lord" is also He who rules over the kings of
         the earth - Re 1:5-6
         a. All authority in heaven and earth has been given Him
            - Mt 28:18
         b. All have been made subject to Him - 1Pe 3:22
         c. Yet, He calls us His "brethren"! - He 2:11-12
      2. As "High Priest", He intercedes in our behalf - Ro 8:34
         a. A High Priest who understands our every feeling
            - He 2:17-18
         b. A High Priest who "ever lives" to make such intercession
            for us - He 7:24-25

   B. WHAT ARE OUR RESPONSIBILITIES OF HAVING JESUS AS LORD AND HIGH
      PRIEST?
      1. If He is truly our LORD, we must do what He says - Lk 6:46
         a. We must be careful to observe what He taught - Mt 28:18-20
         b. We must keep His commandments - Jn 15:10,14
      2. We must also utilize His role as our HIGH PRIEST - He 4:14-16
         a. In other words, be quick to obtain mercy and find grace to
            help us in time of need
         b. Again, for the Christian this involves PRAYER

III. THE HOLY SPIRIT WHO DWELLS IN US - 1Co 3:16

   A. WONDERFUL BLESSINGS ARE ATTRIBUTED TO THE HOLY SPIRIT'S
      INDWELLING...
      1. He gives us strength to put to death the fleshly deeds of the
         body - Ro 8:11-13; Ep 3:16,20
      2. He also helps in our weakness when it comes to praying as we
         ought, by acting as an intercessor for us - Ro 8:26-27

   B. WHAT RESPONSIBILITIES DO WE HAVE IN VIEW OF THE SPIRIT'S
      INDWELLING?
      1. To keep the temple of God, the church, HOLY - 1Co 3:16-17
      2. We are to GLORIFY God even with our bodies - 1Co 6:18-20
      3. We are to WALK in the Spirit, being so LED by the Spirit as to
         produce the FRUIT of the Spirit - Ga 5:16-18, 22-25
         a. This we do by setting our minds on the THINGS of the Spirit
            - Ro 8:5-6
         b. Which involves the WORD of God, which is the SWORD of the
            Spirit - Ep 6:17

IV. THE CHURCH AS OUR FAMILY - 1Ti 3:15

   A. THE BLESSING OF HAVING THE CHURCH AS OUR FAMILY...
      1. The members become like fathers, mothers, brothers, and 
         sisters - 1Ti 5:1-2
      2. They can even replace physical relations we may lose when we
         become Christians - Mk 10:28-30; Mt 12:46-50

   B. RESPONSIBILITIES OF HAVING THE CHURCH AS OUR FAMILY...
      1. We are to "edify one another" - He 10:24-25
         a. This necessitates assembling together frequently
         b. This requires each one doing their share - Ep 4:15-16
      2. We are to "bear one another's burdens" - Ga 6:1-2
         a. For such is the "law" of Christ
         b. This requires that we know each other well, and can be
            depended upon to provide support

CONCLUSION

1. There are certainly many more blessings and responsibilities that we
   have as Christians

2. But I hope that these suffice to IMPRESS UPON US...
   a. How blessed we are as Christians
   b. How important it is that we fulfill our responsibilities
   -- OR WE MAY LOSE THE BLESSINGS WE HAVE! - He 3:12-15

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

eXTReMe Tracker 

How Paganism Affects Reality: Hinduism and Nepal Airlines by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=8&article=2256

How Paganism Affects Reality: Hinduism and Nepal Airlines

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

State-run Nepal Airlines is not a large company by any means. The carrier runs international flights to five cities in Asia. When an electrical glitch developed recently in one of its Boeing 757 aircraft, the airline found it necessary to suspend some of its services temporarily. As part of the solution to the problem, airline officials sacrificed two goats to appease the Hindu sky god, Akash Bhairab (“Airline Sacrifices...,” 2007). That’s correct—in keeping with Hindu rituals, two goats were sacrificed in front of the ailing aircraft at Nepal’s international airport in Kathmandu. Situated on India’s northeast border, sacrificing animals in this Himalayan country to appease Hindu deities is common.
When humans embrace pagan superstition, their judgment becomes impaired. The behavior that results from an animistic belief system may seem quaint and harmless—but it can be deadly, both physically and spiritually. Listen to the apostle Paul’s observations on the matter:
[A]lthough they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever (Romans 1:21-25, emp. added).
[Y]ou should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind, having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardening of their heart; who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness with greediness. But you have not so learned Christ, if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught by Him, as the truth is in Jesus (Ephesians 4:17-21, emp. added).
Sacrificing a couple of goats on an airport runway seems trivial enough. However, it hardly inspires confidence in the capability of airline personnel.

REFERENCES

“Airline Sacrifices Goats to Appease Sky God” (2007), Reuters, September 4, [On-line], URL:http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070904/od_nm/nepal_airline_odd_dc.

Bible Inspiration: The Crucifixion Clothes by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=1744

Bible Inspiration: The Crucifixion Clothes

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The Old Testament book of Psalms constituted the hymnal of the Jewish nation, containing a collection of 150 songs, laments, and praises by various authors. Since the Old Testament canon was very likely completed no later than 400 B.C. (Leupold, 1969, p. 8; cf. Archer, 1974, p. 440), and since the Septuagint is known to have been produced circa 250 B.C., the pronouncements in the Psalms predated the arrival of Jesus on the planet by centuries. Yet, within the sacred pages of the Psalms, scores of very detailed allusions pinpoint specific incidents that occurred in the life of Christ on Earth. These allusions constitute proof positive of the inspiration of the Bible.
For example, composed by David in the 10th century B.C. (Barnes, 1847, pp. 193ff.), Psalm 22 is unquestionably a messianic psalm—literally packed with minute details that forecast the death of the Messiah. In verse 18, the psalmist quotes Him as making the simple statement: “They divide My garments among them, and for My clothing they cast lots.” All four of the inspired New Testament evangelists of the first century A.D. allude to these incidental details that they report in connection with Jesus hanging on the cross (Matthew 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34; John 19:23-24).
While commentators typically report that Roman law awarded the victim’s clothes as spoils for the Roman executioners (e.g., Erdman, 1922, p.161; McGarvey, n.d., p. 725), others question the historicity of such a claim (e.g., Edersheim, 1915, 2:591-592). In any case, the soldiers that attended the cross consisted of a quaternion—four soldiers (Davis, 1870, 3:2651). Matthew and Luke state very simply that these soldiers divided His clothes and cast lots for them, with Luke adding “to determine what every man should take.” These “garments” (merei) likely included a head-dress, sandals, girdle, and outer garment (Robertson, 1916, p. 147). Apparently, according to John 19:23, the soldiers were able to decide ownership of these four clothing articles without gambling. If they were able to agree on consignment of the four articles—one clothes item for each soldier—why did they also cast lots? It is John who provides the added clarification:
Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took His garments and made four parts, to each soldier a part, and also the tunic. Now the tunic was without seam, woven from the top in one piece. They said therefore among themselves, “Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be,” that the Scripture might be fulfilled which says: “They divided My garments among them, and for My clothing they cast lots.” Therefore the soldiers did these things (John 19:23-24).
The tunic was indivisible and unique from the other clothes, and very likely more valuable. It stood alone as seamless and would need to be awarded to a single soldier only, rather than being ripped into four pieces. Hence, they agreed to gamble in order to decide ownership of the tunic.
Observe carefully that these four unnamed Roman military men, who just happened to be assigned crucifixion duty that day, and just happened to have charge of the condemned Jesus of Nazareth (who happened that day to wear a seamless tunic), were operating solely out of their own impulses. They were not Jews. They undoubtedly had no familiarity whatsoever with Jewish Scripture. They were not controlled by any external source. No unseen or mysterious force took charge of their minds, no disciple whispered in their ears to cause them to robotically or artificially fulfill a prophecy. Yet, with uncanny precision, words written by King David a millennium earlier came to stunning fruition—words that on the surface might seem to contradict each other: the clothes were to be divided into separate parts, yet lots would be cast over the clothes. Roman soldiers unwittingly fulfilled the predictions of ancient Scripture in what to them were no more than mere casual, insignificant actions associated with the execution of their military duty, in tandem with their covetous desire to profit from their victim by acquiring His material goods.
But that’s not all. The layers of complexity and sophistication of the doctrine of inspiration, like the layers of an onion, can be peeled back to reveal additional marvels. John informs us that the item of clothing, which necessitated the Roman soldiers need to resort to gambling to decide ownership, was “without seam, woven from the top in one piece.” Why mention this piece of minutia? What significance could possibly be associated with such a seemingly trivial detail? To gain insight into a possible explanation, one must dig deeper into Bible teaching. Since the Bible was authored by Deity, it naturally possesses a depth uncharacteristic of human writers. It reflects indication that its Author was unhampered by the passing of time or the inability to foresee or orchestrate future events. Such qualities are commensurate with the nature of divinity.
In 1500 B.C., God imparted the Law of Moses to the Israelites as the covenant requirements that would guide the nation of Israel through its national existence. This law included provision for the High Priest, the first being Aaron, the brother of Moses, commissioned by God Himself (Exodus 28). On the Day of Atonement (yom kippur), he alone entered the Holy of Holies within the Tabernacle/Temple to make atonement for himself and all the people (Leviticus 16). Bible typology—another bona fide proof of Bible inspiration—portrays Jesus as our High Priest (Hebrews 3:1; 4:14; 9:11; et al.). Very uniquely and critically, Jesus performs for Christians parallel functions to the High Priest that absolutely must be performed if we are to be permitted to be saved to live eternally with Deity in heaven.
Among the articles of clothing stipulated by God for the High Priest was the skillfully woven “tunic of fine linen thread” (Exodus 28:39). According to Josephus, this clothing item was seamless:
Now this vesture was not composed of two pieces, nor was it sewed together upon the shoulders and the sides, but it was one long vestment so woven as to have an aperture for the neck; not an oblique one, but parted all along the breast and the back (3.7.4:203).
Coincidental? Perhaps. Nevertheless, John went out of his way to flag the point. And the Roman soldiers gambled for the seamless tunic of the Messiah—a tunic that subtly signaled His redemptive role as the one to make atonement for the world in the very act of dying on the cross. The handling of the clothes of Jesus Christ on the occasion of His crucifixion demonstrates the inspiration of the Bible and the divine origin of the Christian religion.

REFERENCES

Archer, Gleason (1974), A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago, IL: Moody Press).
Barnes, Albert (1847), Notes on the Old Testament: Psalms (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2005 reprint).
Davis, William (1870), Dictionary of the Bible, ed. H.B. Hackett (New York: Hurd & Houghton).
Edersheim, Alfred (1915), The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (New York: Longmans, Green, & Co.).
Erdman, Charles (1922), The Gospel of John (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press).
Josephus, Flavius (1974 reprint), The Works of Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, trans. by William Whiston (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Leupold, H.C. (1969 reprint), Exposition of the Psalms (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
McGarvey, J.W. (no date), The Fourfold Gospel (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).
Robertson, A.T. (1916), The Divinity of Christ (New York: Fleming H. Revel).

According to Atheist Sam Harris, Atheism is a Preposterous Belief by Kyle Butt, M.A.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2803

According to Atheist Sam Harris, Atheism is a Preposterous Belief

by Kyle Butt, M.A.

Sam Harris wrote a caustic book against all religious faith that he titled, The End of Faith. As with most of the modern atheistic writers, Harris related numerous atrocities committed in the name of religion as evidence that religious faith is inherently flawed. To press his point, he stated:
Whenever you hear that people have begun killing noncombatants intentionally and indiscriminately, ask yourself what dogma stands at their backs. What do these freshly minted killers believe. You will find that it is always—always—preposterous (2004, p. 106, ital. in orig.).
While Harris is wrong to categorize New Testament Christianity with other faiths (see Butt, 2007), he is right to conclude that people today who indiscriminately kill noncombatants are deluded by some type of preposterous belief. Unfortunately, Harris fails to see that by making this statement, he has condemned atheism as a preposterous belief.
The term “noncombatant” is not difficult to understand. It simply means any person who is not actively engaged in a war, riot, or combat situation. Generally speaking, this term describes innocent women and children. For instance, Harris listed several examples of situations in which men, women, and children were killed simply because they belonged to a certain ethnic group. If we were to ask what category of human beings could best be described as “noncombatants,” we would be forced to conclude that babies necessarily fit the category. Thus, any modern belief system that advocates the killing of innocent babies must be backed by a preposterous belief—according to Harris.
When we look into Harris’ writings, we discover that his atheistic philosophy completely justifies the indiscriminant killing of unborn humans. Harris, like his atheistic cohorts, supports abortion. How could Harris miss the connection between his pro-abortion stance and the indiscriminant killing about which he rages? The answer is clear from his own writings, because he posed a very similar question:
How is it, after all, that a Nazi guard could return each day from his labors at the crematoria and be a loving father to his children? The answer is surprisingly straightforward; the Jews he spent the day torturing and killing were not objects of his moral concern. Not only were they outside his moral community; they were antithetical to it. His beliefs about Jews inured him to the natural human sympathies that might have other wise prevented such behavior (2004, p. 176).
Harris correctly concluded that the Nazi soldiers justified their villainous deeds by claiming that Jews were less than human and not worthy to be in the same moral community as the Nazis. Of course, Harris does not believe the Nazis had the right to hold this belief. And he believes that they were guilty of real moral wrong. Yet, shockingly, only one page later he implies that his brand of atheism is in the same position as the Nazi soldier’s belief. He states:
Incidentally, here is where a rational answer to the abortion debate is lurking. Many of us consider human fetuses in the first trimester to be more or less like rabbits: having imputed to them a range of happiness and suffering that does not grant them full status in our moral community. At present, this seems rather reasonable. Only future scientific insights could refute this intuition (p. 177, emp. added).
The Nazi soldier killed Jews all day and justified it by saying they were outside his moral community. The atheistic popularizers like Sam Harris support the indiscriminant slaughter of innocent, unborn children, and justify their belief by concluding that unborn babies do not have “full status in our moral community.”
According to Harris, we must look to see what preposterous dogma undergirds the atheistic community’s support for abortion. When we do, we find the irrational idea that humans are natural organisms that have evolved from lower life forms over billions of years. This outrageous belief strips humanity of the dignity that comes only with belief in a divine Creator. Furthermore, the atheistic assertion establishes humans as the final authority that determines which people should be granted full status in our moral community.
If atheism is true, it would be morally acceptable to redefine humanity’s moral community to include animals, or exclude certain categories of humans. Furthermore, it would be morally justifiable to indiscriminately kill noncombatants based on arbitrarily chosen criteria like age, mental capacity, or physical ability. But Harris has correctly stated that any belief system that allows such actions “is always—always—preposterous.” According to Harris, then, we must conclude that atheism is preposterous.

REFERENCES

Butt, Kyle (2007), “All Religion is Bad Because Some Is?” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3546.
Harris, Sam (2004), The End of Faith (New York: W.W. Norton).

Did Jesus Lie to His Brothers? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=3781

Did Jesus Lie to His Brothers?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Scripture repeatedly testifies that Jesus never sinned. The prophet Isaiah, speaking as if Jesus had already lived and died, said that the Savior “had done no violence, nor was any deceit in His mouth” (53:9). The apostle Peter quoted from Isaiah in his first epistle (2:22), and added that Jesus was “a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Peter 1:19). Paul wrote to the Corinthians how Jesus “knew no sin” (2 Corinthians 5:21). What’s more, according to Hebrews 4:15, Jesus “was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin” (Hebrews 4:15). He was “pure” and “righteous” in the supreme sense (1 John 3:3; 2:1). Simply put, Jesus was perfect; He never transgressed God’s law.
If Jesus never sinned, and specifically never lied, some wonder why Jesus told his brothers, “I do not go up to this feast [the Feast of Tabernacles]” (John 7:8, NASB), if later, “when His brothers had gone...He Himself also went” (7:10, NASB)? Some allege that, in this instance, Jesus “broke his word” and “lied” (McKinsey, 2000, p. 787), and thus was not the Son of God as He claimed. What is the truth of the matter?
First of all, several early manuscripts of the gospel of John, including p66 and p75 (believed to be from as early as the late second and early third centuries), have Jesus saying, “I am not yet [oupo] going up to this feast,” rather than “I do not [ouk] go up to this feast.” Thus, it may be that the correct rendering is found in the KJV, NKJV, and NIV, rather than the ASV, NASB, and RSV.
Second, even if Jesus did say at one point to His brothers, “I do not go up to this feast,” but later He went, that still does not mean that He lied. Suppose a co-worker saw me leaving the office at 2:00 p.m. and asked me, “Are you going home?” and I said, “No,” but later went home that day at 5:00 p.m. Have I lied? Not at all. When I left the office at 2:00 p.m., I went to run a quick errand—I did not go home. When I departed the office at 5:00 p.m., however, I went home. “No” is often truthfully used in a time-sensitive manner. Simply because at 2:00 p.m. I said I was not going home, does not mean I could not go home at 5:00 p.m. My “no” meant “I’m not going home at the present.” Similarly, if Jesus used the term “not” [ouk] rather than “not yet” [oupo], He could just as easily been implying the same thing: “I am not going to the feast at the present.”
At the proper time, after Jesus “remained in Galilee” for a while (7:9), He did go to the feast. The proper time was not when his unbelieving brothers told Him to “depart” (John 7:5), but when the Son of God said it was time—a God-appointed time. Furthermore, His attendance at the feast was not for the purpose that His brothers envisioned (to show Himself to the world—7:3-4), rather Jesus went to the feast “not openly, but as it were in secret” (7:10, emp. added).
Just as we often say, “I am not going,” but mean “I am not going yet,” Jesus had every right to use that same kind of language. Although Jesus embodied truth (John 14:6) and always told the truth (1 Peter 2:22), He still used figures of speech and language men commonly understood—some even today.

REFERENCE

McKinsey, C. Dennis (2000), Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus).

“Devoid of Any Understanding of Logic” by Kyle Butt, M.A.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=959

“Devoid of Any Understanding of Logic”

by Kyle Butt, M.A.

One can read all kinds of material on the Internet these days. Millions of Web pages flash across computer screens on a daily basis. A fraction of that material centers on the debate between creation and evolution. Both sides marshal their best defenses, and pump out information in support of their particular view. While it is understood that every person who produces material for one particular view is not the “official spokesperson” for that view, it is nonetheless very interesting to see what tactics are being used by certain evolutionists in their attempt to discredit creation.
Consider an article by Frank Zindler, for instance. The article is titled “ ‘Creation Science’ and the Facts of Evolution.” It is a rather dated article, being written back in 1987, but is currently posted on the American Atheists official Web site. From the fact that it is posted on the Web site of such a prominent atheistic organization, one can only conclude that the American Atheists organization concurs with the sentiments found in the article.
The article in question is a caustic attack against creation, as well as any person who adheres to this idea. In his attempt to discredit creation, Zindler informs the reader that he believes that most of those who believe in creation are quite “devoid of any understanding of logic.” When listing one of the reasons why he thinks creation is not a viable idea, he made this statement: “On the other hand, those components of creationism which involve certain types of magical events (e.g., the divine creation of a young universe with all of its components bearing the false imprint of great age) make the claims of creationism untestable—making creationism not a theory at all, because theories must be testable!”
Zindler then proceeded to explain that “the conclusion that evolution has occurred is drawn from two simple observations: Observation 1: Living things come only from living things. Spontaneous generation is not possible when living things are already in existence. Observation 2: Fossil remains show that living things in the remote past were very different from living things today. Therefore:Conclusion: Life has changed through time (evolved).”
Violà! In three simple sentences, Zindler presents his strongest case for evolution. Let’s briefly analyze Zindler’s logic. Remember that he claimed that most creationists were “devoid of any understanding of logic,” and that creationism could not qualify as a theory because, he says, it is untestable and “theories must be testable!”
Using his own criterion (testability) for a theory, apply his thinking to his first observation. He stated that spontaneous generation does not occur “when living things are already in existence.” The implied statement here is that life can spontaneously generate where there is not already life. In fact, he had an explanatory note beside his first observation. He said: “Life cannot originate now for at least two reasons.” The two reasons he listed were the fact that oxygen in the atmosphere would quickly destroy compounds necessary for life, and existing microbes would eat the compounds necessary for life. He went on to conclude, however that “neither of these roadblocks to spontaneous generation existed before life had formed.”
Please remember that his most important criterion for dubbing anything a legitimate theory is testability. Apply that to spontaneous generation. Can we do experiments that would test whether or not spontaneous generation could occur in an environment without oxygen and microbes to destroy the compounds necessary for life? Yes. And every origin of life experiment that has attempted such has failed miserably. Has any scientist anywhere, at any time, under any circumstance, ever been able to perform an experiment that could prove that spontaneous generation can occur? The answer is a resounding, NO! Spontaneous generation has failed in every single circumstance that we humans have ever been able to observe or imagine. In fact, every experiment performed to date has shown that it does not occur. It cannot be proven that our Earth’s atmosphere was at some time in the distant past devoid of oxygen and microbes. [In fact, scientists now have credible evidence that the early Earth’s atmosphere did, in fact, contain oxygen; see Thaxton, et al., 1984).] Furthermore, experiments have been performed that imitate an environment devoid of these “life inhibitors,” and still there has never been a verified case of spontaneous generation. Spontaneous generation has been proven false.
If Zindler discredits the idea of creation based partially on his statement that certain components cannot be tested, then what, pray tell, does he do when his strongest case for evolution is based on an idea that has been tested and found to be false? And who is it that seems to be “devoid of any understanding of logic” in this particular discussion? Zindler’s statements not withstanding, creation by the hand of a Supernatural Creator is the only idea that can adequately account for the world around us.

REFERENCES

Thaxton, Charles B., Walter L. Bradley, and Roger L. Olsen (1984), The Mystery of Life's Origin (New York: Philosophical Library).
Zindler, Frank (1987), “ ‘Creation Science’ and the Facts of Evolution,” [On-line], URL: http://www.atheists.org/bone.pit/creationscience.html.