Category Archives: Uncategorized

Wally Hall discusses the 2014 lineup of Little Rock Touchdown Club Speakers!!!

LRTDC scores big with who’s who of speakers

By Wally Hall

This article was published August 7, 2014 at 3:26 a.m.

david-bazzel-president-of-the-little-rock-touchdown-club-announces-the-clubs-lineup-of-speakers-wednesday-in-the-lobby-of-the-simmons-tower-building-in-little-rock

David Bazzel, president of the Little Rock Touchdown Club, announces the club’s lineup of speakers Wednesday in the lobby of the Simmons Tower building in Little Rock.

 

It is never the same old thing with David Bazzel.

Wednesday, in front of a couple hundred football fans in the lobby of Simmons Bank , Baz announced this year’s lineup of speakers for the Little Rock Touchdown Club. It is, by far, the most impressive group of speakers in the history of the club, which is in its 11th year.

Understand that it is called the Little Rock Touchdown Club, but people come from all over the state to hear the speakers. So it was a natural that Simmons stepped up to take over the presenting sponsorship role after it acquired former sponsor Metropolitan Bank.

George Makris, Simmons chief executive officer and chairman, opened the news conference by saying something that became the theme of the conference and this year’s speakers: Help raise the bar.

Baz, who keeps the speakers a secret until the announcement, revealed a lineup that includes five former NFL players, two former NFL head coaches and the executive vice president of the Dallas Cowboys, Charlotte Jones Anderson, who will be the Touchdown Club’s first female speaker.

Memberships start at $60, but there are also packages that include being a member of the National Football Foundation for $85, and you can add the Arkansas Sports Hall of Fame for a total of $135. Membership information is available at LRtouchdown.com.

Arkansas Razorback Coach Bret Bielema will kick off the season Tuesday, Aug. 19, at the Statehouse Convention Center and will be followed by former NFL coach Dave Wannstedt on Monday, Aug. 25.

The third speaker, Mark May of ESPN, will be Tuesday, Sept. 2, and NFL Hall of Famer and former coach Mike Singletary is set for Tuesday, Sept. 9. All the other speakers, except for the awards banquet in February, will appear on Mondays, primarily at Embassy Suites on Chenal Parkway.

Arkansas Athletic Director Jeff Long is Sept. 15, Charlotte Jones Anderson on Sept. 22, former Ole Miss coach Ed Orgeron on Sept. 29 and NFL Hall of Famer Lee Roy Jordan on Oct. 6.

Oct. 13, the week of the Razorbacks’ game against Georgia, former Bulldogs coach Jim Donnan will speak. He will be followed by ESPN and SEC Network host Dari Nowkhah (a rising star in the profession) on Oct. 20, ASU Coach Blake Anderson on Oct. 27 and former NFL great Raghib “Rocket” Ismail on Nov. 3.

The Nov. 10 meeting moves back to the Statehouse Convention Center and will feature nine Arkansans who are being inducted in the Southwest Conference Hall of Fame.

New UCA Coach Steve Campbell is Nov. 17, and former NFL and Razorbacks great Shawn Andrews closes the regular season Nov. 24.

The February awards banquet will feature NFL Hall of Famer Michael Irvin, the former Dallas Cowboys wide receiver.

Baz was not bashful about saying the lineup costs money and that Simmons has helped him raise the bar. Then he told the story about the day Simmons Bank opened its doors in 1904 when a little more than $3,200 was deposited on the first day.

“I guarantee you some of these speakers cost more than $3,200,” Baz said.

Some of those speakers usually charge more than $20 per person for an event, and that’s the price of lunch and the speaker for a member.

Baz also introduced Debbie Wyman as the new executive director of the Touchdown Club (DebbieWyman@LRTouchdown.com).

The founding members and board also were introduced. They are very involved in the operation — although even they don’t know the speaker lineup until the news conference — but it is Baz’s leadership that has made LRTDC a statewide success.

Wednesday’s news conference raised the bar, and no doubt it will rise again in the future.

Sports on 08/07/2014

Print Headline: LRTDC scores big with who’s who of speakers

 

Rex Nelson impersonates Houston Nutt at LRTC 08 27 12

Published on Oct 2, 2012

Little Rock Touchdown Club has Rex Nelson do the stats for the games played that week. Rex does a lot of impersonations of different people but I like his Houston Nutt the best. Video by Popeye Video – Mrpopeyevideo

______________

I have written about my past visits to the Little Rock Touchdown Club many times and I have been amazed at the quality of the speakers. One of my favorite was  Phillip Fulmer, but Frank Broyles was probably my favorite, and  Paul Finebaum, Mike Slive, Willie Roaf, Randy White, Howard Schnellenberger, John Robinson, Mark May, Gene Stallings, Bobby Bowden, Lloyd Carr, Johnny Majors, Pat Summerall, Pat Dye, Vince Dooley , Eric Mangino, and many more were very good too.

If pressed then right behind Frank was  Phillip Fulmer, Howard Schnellenberger, John Robinson, Gene Stallings, Bobby Bowden, Lloyd Carr, Johnny Majors, Pat Summerall, Pat Dye, and Vince Dooley .

 

______________________

Related posts:

Mangino speaks at Little Rock Touchdown Club (Part 2)

Mangino at a 2007 KU basketball game Eric Mangino is a very good speaker. Here is a portion of an article by Jim Harris: Jim Harris’ Notebook: Mangino Ready To Return; Big Week For Central Arkansas by Jim Harris 11/14/2011 at 3:37pm It’s easy for fans who don’t follow Kansas football closely to forget just […]

Johnny Majors speaks at Little Rock Touchdown Club (Part 12)jh80

Uploaded by TheMemphisSlim on Sep 3, 2010 Johnny Majors from Huntland, TN tried out for the UT Football team weighing 150 pounds. His Father, Shirley Majors his HS Coach,encourage him and then 4 younger brothers all to be Vols. Johnny Majors was the runner-up in 1956 for the Heisman Trophy to Paul Horning, on a loosing Notre Dame […]

Rex Nelson mentions “Nutt to Memphis” rumor at Little Rock Touchdown Club Meeting on 11-28-11

Yesterday at the Little Rock Touchdown Club meeting Rex Nelson during his SEC roundup mentioned the popular rumor that got started last week that Houston Nutt had been contacted by Memphis. Of course, at the time Larry Porter had not even been fired. I called someone I knew in Memphis and they told me that […]

Steve Sullivan, Wally Hall and Jim Harris talk at Little Rock Touchdown Club on 11-28-11

I enjoyed the Little Rock Touchdown Club and have posted a lot about it all fall. I have links below to earlier posts. Yesterday Wally Hall and Steve Sullivan had some good insights. Below are some of the thoughts of Jim Harris that he shared at the lunch. BUILDING THE DEFENSE: How nice it would […]

ESPN’s Mark Schlabach at Little Rock Touchdown Club (Part 3)

Earlier I wrote about where I think Arkansas could win a national championship with just two more wins. Below is a portion of an article by Jim Harris of the website Arkansas 360: AND ON BOBBY: Schlabach, on Arkansas’ coach: “I said when he was hired that Bobby Petrino would make Arkansas a contender for […]

Johnny Majors speaks at Little Rock Touchdown Club (Part 1)jh70

Below is a picture of Lane Kiffin with Johnny Majors. Today Johnny Majors spoke at the Little Rock Touchdown Club. Majors told several revealing stories about his time at Arkansas from 1964-1968 when he was an assistant coach under Frank Broyles. One of the funniest stories concerned fellow assistant coach Jim MacKenzie who knew how to […]

Johnny Majors to speak at Little Rock Touchdown Club: What is connection to Arkansas Athletic Director Jeff Long?

Former Tennessee Football Coach Johnny Majors is to speak at Little Rock Touchdown Club todayat the Embassy Suites hotel. Majors coached at Iowa State from 1968-1972, Pittsburgh from 1973-1976 and 1993-1996, where he led the Panthers to the 1976 national championship and at Tennessee from 1977-1992, where he won three SEC championships. 1976 Sugar Bowl National Championship […]

News of Pat Summerall’s conversion brought a smile to Tom Landry’s face jh38

  I got to ask Pat Summerall a question at the Little Rock Touchdown Club meeting back in October of 2010. Summerall had pointed out that Tom Landry was the defensive coordinator and Vince Lombardi was the offensive backfield coach when he played for the Giants.  Summerall had shared how he had recovered from his […]

Auburn’s Pat Dye at Little Rock Touchdown Club on Oct 3, 2011

We have had some great speakers at the Little Rock Touchdown Club and Auburn’s Pat Dye has to be included in that list. Jim Harris: No Little Rock Touchdown Club Speaker Quite Like Former Auburn Coach Pat Dye by Jim Harris 10/3/2011 at 3:22pm The last time former Auburn head football coach Pat Dye addressed […]

Lloyd Carr speaks to Little Rock Touchdown Club

Yesterday I got to hear Lloyd Carr speak to the Little Rock Touchdown Club. Below is how the Arkansas Democrat Gazette covered it. LITTLE ROCK — Lloyd Carr coached Tom Brady at the beginning of his 13-year tenure as Michigan’s head coach and Ryan Mallett at the end. Now, Brady and Mallett are New England […]

 

Bobby Bowden named to Broyles Award Selection Committee jh25

    The Broyles Award Trophy, made out of solid bronze, depicts Broyles (kneeling) and longtime University of Arkansas assistant coach Wilson Matthews (standing), watching over a Razorback football game or practice. Matthews was the coach of Little Rock Central High School before joining Broyles on the Razorback’s staff. ______________ Today at the Little Rock […]

Gene Stallings on Texas A&M joining the SEC jh14b

Gene Stallings used to interview the boys that dated his daughters. He asked his future son-in-laws if they played sports. He wanted to know if they had competed at something. Below is an article on what Stallings thinks about Texas A&M joining SEC. Stallings: SEC best fit for A&M By Troy Schulte Wednesday, September 7, […]

Mark May at Little Rock Touchdown Club Part 1

Reggie Herring is featured in this video above about the 1980 Florida St victory over Pitt. Mark May did a great job at the first Little Rock Touchdown Club meeting of the year. Jim Harris of Arkansas Sports 360 did a good article on it and I agree with what Wally Hall wrote on his […]

 

Howard Schnellenberger speaks at Little Rock Touchdown Club Part 1

I got to hear Howard Schnellenberger speak on 9-4-12 at the Little Rock Touchdown Club. I enjoyed hearing his stories about Bear Bryant and what he learned from the Bear. Here is a story by Jim Harris that discusses these too things. Jim Harris: Spirit Of Arkansan Bear Bryant Runs Through Schnellenberger’s Veins <!– 23 […]

USC’s John Robinson speaks at Little Rock Touchdown Club Part 6

1972 USC Football Highlights vs. Notre Dame Uploaded by 63utuber on Jun 14, 2011 No description available. I got to hear Coach Robinson speak in Little Rock on August 27, 2012. Little Rock Touchdown Club Week 2: Hall Of Fame Coach John Robinson by Zack Veddern on Aug 28, 2012 9:07 AM CDT   robinson […]

 

 

Gus Malzahn does a great job at Little Rock Touchdown Club (Part 1)

Gov. Beebe, Shane Broadway, Steve Sullivan, Jeff Hankins and all the notable ASU grads were in the audience today at the Little Rock Touchdown Club. This was the second time I got to see Gus Malzahn speak at the Little Rock Touchdown Club. Two years ago he was skyped in since tornadoes made it impossible […]

Tom Lemming spoke at Little Rock Touchdown Club

Arkansas is hoping for a top notch recruiter for the next coach. Will we get one? Jim Harris: Recruiting Expert Lemming Says Right Choice For Hogs Can Land Impact Players <!– 23 –> by Jim Harris 10/29/2012 at 3:45pm As much as recruiting seems to excite every college football fan base, including Arkansas’, one would […]

Mike Slive spoke at Little Rock Touchdown Club Part 3

I really enjoyed hearing Mike Slive speak on Monday. The SEC is blessed to have Slive. Take a look below at all of his accomplishments. Home / Sports / LITTLE ROCK TOUCHDOWN CLUB Slive: Nonconference tie-ups tangle scheduling PHOTO BY KAREN E. SEGRAVE Under the leadership of SEC Commissioner Mike Slive, the conference has won 62 […]

Paul Finebaum speaks at Little Rock Touchdown Club Part 3

Harvey Updyke Interview on The Paul Finebaum Show 4 21 11 Part 3 Bobby Petrino going to Tennessee later this year? I thought he would jump at the chance to do that. However, the Vols have looked pretty good this year and if they go into Miss St’s homefield this week and beat the #17 […]

Willie Roaf at Little Rock Touchdown Club Part 6

On Oct 1, 2012 I got to hear Willie Roaf speak at the Little Rock Touchdown Club and he did a great job. One thing he said about Charles McRae and Antone Davis of Tennessee was hard to hear. I think he said that they were his friends and he thought they were very talented […]

(BP)–Antony Flew, a legendary British philosopher and atheist, has changed his mind about the existence of God in light of recent scientific evidence.Flew —

_____________

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)–Antony Flew, a legendary British philosopher and atheist, has changed his mind about the existence of God in light of recent scientific evidence.Flew — a prolific author who has argued against the existence of God and the claims of Christianity for more than 50 years — first revealed his change of mind in a video of a discussion with several others at New York University organized by the Institute for Metascientific Research. The video, released in December, is titled, “Has Science Discovered God?”Flew said he is now best described as a deist — a person who believes God created the universe but is not actively involved in people’s lives today.”I don’t believe in the God of any revelatory system, although I am open to that,” Flew said in an interview for the winter 2005 edition of Philosophia Christi, the journal of the Evangelical Philosophical Society. “But it seems to me that the case for … [a] God who has the characteristics of power and also intelligence is now much stronger than it ever was before.”Flew, 81, regularly attended the Socratic Club, a weekly religious forum led by famed Christian apologist C.S. Lewis while he attended college at Oxford. Flew proclaimed the lack of evidence for God while teaching at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele and Reading universities in Britain. He also published numerous books and articles denouncing belief in God.Flew credits his newfound belief in God to arguments from design such as those espoused by the “intelligent design” (ID) movement. ID argues that the universe operates in such a way that it points to the existence of an intelligent creator.”I think that the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries,” Flew said. “… I think the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it.”Although many atheists appeal to naturalistic evolution as a method by which the world could have come into existence apart from God, Charles Darwin himself acknowledged that the process of evolution requires a creator to start the process, Flew said.”Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of The Origin of Species, pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers,” Flew said. “This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account. Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account.”While Flew said he does not believe in a God who is active in the lives of humans, he is “open to” the possibility of divine revelation. He also believes that Christians are intellectually justified in holding to their religion and that the resurrection of Jesus has more evidential support than any other reported miracle in history.”The evidence for the resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion,” Flew said. “It’s outstandingly different in quality and quantity, I think, from the evidence offered for the occurrence of most other supposedly miraculous events.”Gary Habermas, chairman of the department of philosophy and theology at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., told Baptist Press that Flew’s decision to believe in God points to the strength of theistic arguments.”His conversion is a testimony to the many, especially scientific figures, who are coming by way of intelligent design,” said Habermas, who conducted the interview with Flew in Philosophia Christi. “… The fact that he has become a theist is a testimony to the type of evidence we have for God’s existence today.”Flew’s status as a world-famous atheist makes his conversion to belief in God particularly significant, Habermas said in an interview with Baptist Press.”His conversion to theism is very valuable because of his stature,” Habermas said. “The reason this story is going around the world is that he, not just anybody, but he, has converted to theism. I think that’s very significant.”Despite his belief in the existence of God, Flew said it is unlikely that he will ever become a Christian. The major evidence against the God of Christianity is the problem of evil, Flew said.The problem of evil refers to the apparent tension between the existence of a good God and the presence of evil in the world.”The problem of evil is a problem … for Christians,” Flew said. “The thesis that the universe was created and is sustained by a Being of infinite power and goodness is flatly incompatible with the occurrence of massive undeniable and undenied evils in that universe.”Flew also argues that God does not have “any preferences … about or any intentions concerning human behavior or about the eternal destinies of human beings.”Although he does not accept Christianity, Flew emphatically denies the possibility that he would ever become a follower of Islam, citing Islam’s commitment to conquer all of its opponents.”I would never regard Islam with anything but horror and fear because it is fundamentally committed to conquering the world for Islam,” Flew said.Flew will present a more fully developed explanation of his conversion to belief in God in a forthcoming edition of his book, “God & Philosophy.”

Earlier works by Flew include “Atheistic Humanism,” “Darwinian Evolution,” “A Dictionary of Philosophy,” “Introduction to Western Philosophy” and “How to Think Straight: An Introduction to Critical Reasoning.

 

 

____________

Guest Blogger Dan Meyer Writes on Antony Flew and Problem of Evil Posted: November 8, 2007 by Rick Hogaboam in Ethics, Philosophy, Theology

_______________

Guest Blogger Dan Meyer Writes on Antony Flew and Problem of Evil

Posted: November 8, 2007 by Rick Hogaboam in EthicsPhilosophyTheology
Tags: 

Antony Flew

There are two articles in the NY Times this morning that make me sick. They are both about Antony Flew (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04Flew-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin), the famous British philosopher who seems to have moved from atheism (he wrote a very influential book on the subject many years ago) to a belief in the Aristotelian god, a prime mover, a being who is itself unmoved, but which moves everything else. Flew is quite old now, and possibly suffering from Alzheimer’s, but Christians and atheists are fighting over him, each side trying to manipulate him for its own advantage. So one moment Flew says this, another moment he says that. Both sides bully him intellectually and then come away with what appears to them convincing proof for their side. It’s disgraceful.
Clearly, Flew is not the intellectual giant he used to be. He is unable to keep up with current trends, and he seems to be easily persuaded – or misled.

I’m so tired of evangelical Christians doing immoral things, and being so arrogant and stupid. The Christian faith does not depend upon airtight proofs for the existence of God. Jesus didn’t commission his disciples to go into all the world and devise scientific arguments re: the origin of the universe. He told them to go and preach the gospel – and also to embody
the gospel in their lives. The gospel doesn’t need sophisticated philosophical or scientific arguments; Billy Graham has proved that for over half a century. He doesn’t argue; he proclaims. He tells the story, tells people that God loves them, that Christ died for them, that they can be forgiven and empowered to live a new life and face the challenges and crises of living with courage and strength and hope.

One of the articles is by Stanley Fish (http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/suffering-evil-and-the-existence-of-god/index.html), dealing with the problem of evil. He reviews a new book by Bart Ehrman, of Princeton, who gave a couple of lectures at Yale Divinity School a couple of years ago, is the son of a minister who went to Wheaton College and became a minister, but is now a convinced atheist. He looks at all the evil, the suffering and pain in the world and concludes that God could not possibly exist.

It’s a strong argument, one that any minister, myself included, has to face. Ministers, of all people, are constantly confronted by suffering and tragedy, not only in the lives of parishioners, but in their own lives as well. I’ve left hospital rooms seething with anger at what I’ve seen, saying to God through clenched teeth, “I wouldn’t do this to my worst enemy, but you say you love these people!” There’s no use denying that there is a massive amount of evil and pain in the world. The question is, “Can it be explained?”

I don’t think it can, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t help. The help comes from the cross. The Christian faith has always believed that Jesus was God incarnate, the Word who, as John says, was in the beginning with God and was God. In Jesus God stooped to share our human condition, with all its pain and suffering. And at the cross he endured the worst that ugly men could hurl at him; more than that, the Christian faith insists that he died for our sins, that in his death he triumphed over the power of evil, as his resurrection on the third day demonstrated.

In other words, God knows the power of evil and the agony of suffering because in Jesus he experienced it firsthand. He knows what men and women go through, so the author of Hebrews can say, “Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.” And again,”We do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are – yet without sin.” So suffering men and women are now able to “approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive
mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.”

This, of course, does not solve the problem of evil and suffering. Karl Barth called it ‘the impossible possibility.’ But it assures us that we are not alone. God knows – not just intellectually, but experientially; and he cares.

Part of the problem is that we are continually underestimating the power of evil. The Christian faith says that in order to overcome it, it was necessary for God himself, in the person of his Son, to become human and suffer the indignities and agonies of the cross. Shouldn’t that be a clue as to the strength of evil? Jesus himself prayed in the Garden, “If it be possible, let this cup pass from me.” But there was no other way; that was the only solution available. My suspicion is that when we see God, we will know that he has been in the fight of his life. He could not overcome evil with his left hand while doing something more important with his right. He had to muster all his strength to overcome it. This is why Jesus taught us to pray, “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.” A more accurate rendering might be, “Do not bring us to the test (we are far too weak for that), but deliver us from the Evil One.”

Instead of fighting intellectual battles that can never be won, shouldn’t we be pointing to Christ and to the cross as the key to understanding our world and our lives? Then we wouldn’t be tempted to manipulate tired, confused old men to prove the existence of God, and who knows? We ourselves might be led to abandon our arrogance and kneel before the cross, “lost in wonder, love and praise.”

 

_____________

Popular but False Ideas

_____________

Popular but False Ideas

 

Welcome fellow Yahooligan! If you find this page useful, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic.

 In our dialogue about the existence of God this morning (Newstalk 93, Jamaica) my friend Lloyd D’Aguilar a professing atheist repeated some notions that are downright false even though propounded by reputable scientists. I am summarizing the essence of the false ideas and not necessarily quoting Lloyd or any scientist (unless otherwise indicated).

 

False Idea #1– Given millions or billions of years matter can generate almost anything.

The flaw here is that time is treated as having causative powers. Time, like chance, has no causative powers at all so no matter how much time you invoke you still need a cause to get the end product under discussion. Time may be necessary but not sufficient for anything to come or be brought about.

I raised the multi-pronged problem for a non-God thesis providing an explanation for; something being in the world as opposed to nothing at all, the origin of life from non-life, the origin of reproductive capacity in animals, the origin of the genetic code or of the information-rich nature of all life forms (à la Antony Flew), the origin of rationality/conceptual thought, the origin of the self (the entity that understands and intends, etc.) and the origin of consciousness/self-consciousness (à la Roy Varghese). All of these phenomena, either presuppose the existence of an infinite, eternal Mind or Self (God) or are best explained by invoking God=the inference to the best explanation.

Varghese suggests a cute but deadly thought experiment for the atheist. He urges “Think for a minute of a marble table in front of you. Do you think that, given a trillion years or infinite time, this table could suddenly or gradually become conscious, aware of its surroundings, aware of its identity the way you are? It is simply inconceivable that this would or could happen. And the same goes for any kind of matter…But the atheist position is that, at some point in the history of the universe, the impossible and the inconceivable took place. Undifferentiated matter (here we include energy), at some point, became ‘alive’, then conscious, then conceptually proficient, then an ‘I’…this is simply laughable.” (Appendix A, p.163 of Antony Flew’s 2007 book There is a God.

Ponder the fact that Nobel Prize-winning physiologist George Wald said concerning the origin of life “We choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance.” (cited in Flew, 131)

 

False Idea #2 Matter has always been there, matter is eternal.

This notion has been thoroughly debunked since the early twentieth century and has been further buried by the discoveries of the Cosmic Background Explorer COBE satellite. Agnostic Robert Jastrow summarizes thus, “Five independent lines of evidence—the motion of the galaxies, the discovery of the primordial fireball, the law of thermodynamics, the abundance of helium in the universe and the life story of the stars—point to one conclusion; all indicate that the Universe had a beginning.” (in hisGod and the Astronomers, 2nd edition, 1992, 103) The universe properly understood is the sum total of the things that constitute it, essentially matter. So then since matter is not eternal it is proper to ask about its origin.

The world and life as we know it cry out for an explanation and the God thesis is the inference to the best explanation. The God thesis has greater explanatory power and explanatory scope than any of its competitors.

 

 

_____________

Biological Proof of God’s Existence by Rev. Clinton Chisholm

______________

Biological Proof of God’s Existence

There is arguably no greater ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ evidence for the existence of apersonal intelligent God than the presence and pervasiveness of biologicalinformation in all living things.







Ponder the testimony of atheistic Biologist Richard Dawkins on the nature of biologicalinformation.

“…at the molecular genetic level, every single one of more than a trillion cells in the body contains about a thousand times as much precisely-coded digital informationas my entire computer…” (The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, xiii).

What Dawkins is getting at here is the stubborn fact that DNA, the molecule of heredity, isinformation rich.

“In order for any organism to be whatever it is, its genetic program (DNA) must specify what sort of organism it will be and, within surprisingly narrow limits, what specific characteristics it will assume…The DNA must be faithfully copied to every single cell of an organism that will eventually consist of billions of cells if the organism is to remain viable…” (John W. Oller Jr. et al in The Creation Hypothesis,1994, edited by J.P. Moreland, 252, 253.)

 

 

 

Each of us began as a tiny entity about the size of a full stop. Yet all of our physical characteristics were spelled out in our DNA and this coded information guided our development into adulthood.  Modern scientists with their advanced technology and superior intelligence still can’t store so much information in so small a container as one cell of the human body (probe Dawkins’ words again).  What would any rational person conclude about the origin of a computer (a mechanical information-storing facility)? By chance, natural cause or by intelligent cause? What is the inference to the best explanation here?

Bear in mind too that information is a non-material (mental) entity and cannot at all originate from matter though it can be stored in matter.  It follows inexorably then that once we detect genuine information we must conclude that intelligence is behind its origin.  This has been the scientific basis for the SETI program, the Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence. SETI scientists scan the millions of radio signals produced in outer space in search of a specified, complex pattern distinguishable from the normal noise (unspecified or specified but simple signal patterns) of outer space (cf. the movie Contact).

 

 

It is understandable to me then why the late British Atheist and Philosopher Antony Flew surrendered atheism and gave one of three reasons for his change as the formidable challenge of finding a naturalistic [non-God] explanation for

“…the origin of the coding and information processing that is central to all life-forms…” (in his There is a God, 2007, 126).

In the field of origin of life studies leading researchers bluntly admit their ignorance of the origin of genetic information. Carl Woese, an internationally recognized leader in origin of life studies laments

“The origins of translation, that is before it became a true decoding mechanism, are for now lost in the dimness of the past, and I don’t wish to engage here in hand-waving speculations as to what polymerization processes might have preceded and given rise to it, or to speculate on the origins of tRNA, tRNA charging systems or the genetic code.” (in RNA, 2001, 1064 cited in Flew, 128).

Antonio Lazcano, who served for two terms as President of the International Society for the Study of the Origin of Life, said..

“Life could not have evolved without a genetic mechanism—one able to store, replicate, and transmit to its progeny information that can change with time…Precisely how the first genetic machinery evolved also persists as an unresolved issue…The exact pathway for life’s origin may never be known.” (in Natural History, February, 2006, cited in Flew, 130).

Yet ponder the strange words of the Nobel Prize-winning physiologist George Wald concerning the origin of life.

“We choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance.” -George Wald

If this were a court of law and I had called Wald as a reluctant scientific witness in defense of the existence of God I would simply say “The defense rests your honor.”

_______________

About Rev. Clinton Chisholm

My name is Rev. Clinton Chisholm, I am an Author and Apologist, I’ve produced 25 educational audio recordings, the latest being, “The Church’s Impact on Western Civilization”. I’m the author of the books, “A Matter of Principle” and “Revelations on Ras Tafari”. Get these resources atTheChisholmSource.com

 

 

_____________

 

______________

“Nothing New Here”

___________________

“Nothing New Here”

After posting my previous entry, “Who Made God?,” I went to Twitter and tweeted about the blog (I’m @AnswersAuthor, and there’s a “follow” button at the bottom of this page). Here’s a typical message I tweeted: “#Atheists like #ChristopherHitchens ask, ‘If God made the universe, who made God?’ Find the answer to that question athttp://thetruthwillmakeyoumad.wordpress.com.&#8221;

I got a wide range of responses, both complimentary and otherwise. The uncomplimentary tweets included: “Claptrap. Self-devolving prose.” “What a pathetic specimen you are, clinging to your superstition for dear life.” “I feel ever so slightly dumber after reading some of that.”

To the twitterer who felt “ever so slightly dumber,” I replied, “Sorry my blog made you feel dumb. That was not my intent. Reread two more times—I’m sure you’ll feel smarter.” He tweeted back, “I’m afraid if I read more the result will irreversible.” To which I replied, “Then, by all means, avoid exposure to new ideas and information. I wish you well.” Ah, but we weren’t quite done. He tweeted back: “Nothing in your writing was new.”

At that point, I knew exactly how this thing would play out. I’ve spent the past 25 years studying the evidence and assembling my own case for God. I know for an absolute fact that I’ve put together a case (especially the “Who Made God?” argument) that is not in print anywhere else. I know how groundbreaking these ideas are. So for this twitterer to say there’s nothing new here is so obviously false that I knew he was bluffing. He either hadn’t read the blog, or he didn’t understand the blog, or he was pretending to have knowledge he just didn’t have.

Well, it was time for him to put up or shut up, so I tweeted back: “Excellent. You can cite for me which ideas in the article you’ve seen before and where you read them?” And, as I knew he would, he tweeted back: “Or I could waste no more of my time on you.” To which I replied, “That’s fine. As I said a few tweets ago, I wish you well.”

And I meant it. I do wish him well. I wish nothing but the best for all of my critics on Twitter and elsewhere. I hope they find the truth they are so strenuously, belligerently trying to avoid and suppress.

For some reason, my atheist critics on Twitter are usually angry and hostile, and their attacks are disproportionately personal and vindictive. I don’t know why that is. Is it the atheist mindset itself that makes people so hostile? Or is it something about Twitter, and its 140-character limitations, that makes people behave badly? I really don’t know.

One twitterer attacked my Twitter profile bio, saying, “Even his bio is a self-aggrandizing word salad.” My bio reads: “Skeptical believer, Christian anthropicist, Hayek-Friedman-Reagan small-gummint classical liberal, post-partisan author.” A word salad is defined as a string of incomprehensible words having no apparent connection to one another. But my Twitter bio is a highly succinct and accurate summation of who I am. It describes me.

So I replied (in a series of tweets), “You are kidding me! Attacking my bio, dude? Really? A rational response would be: Examine my sources, confront any faulty logic, and show me the error of my ways. I don’t know why my humble little blog is so threatening to you, but feel free to simply avoid new ideas and reject new information. Ad hominem attack is so weak and anti-rational.”

The twitterer replied, “But so apropos in this case and so enjoyable, Skippy!”

Now, here’s a weird thing I’ve noticed: For some reason, atheists on Twitter like to call their opponents “Skippy.” I’ve encountered that multiple times. I replied (over several tweets): “Atheists’ Handbook, p. 37: ‘When out of intellectual ammo, call the other guy Skippy.’ You’re the third atheist to call me that. Weak, irrational ad hominem attack is never logically apropos, but when that’s all you’ve got . . .”

I didn’t hear back.

Another atheist looked at my blog and tweeted, “An ignorant response which fails horribly. The atheist Hitchens’ question still stands, even though you word-play. Pathetic.”

So I responded, “Know what’s really pathetic? Asserting that something ‘fails horribly’ or is ignorant wordplay without backing up the assertion. Christopher Hitchens said, ‘What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.’ Where’s your evidence? #Weak”

The atheist replied, “What do #atheists need evidence for? When Hitchens said that, he was speaking of theists and their assertions. Pay attention.”

Well, of course, Hitchens was speaking of theists and their assertions. But the Hitchens principle cuts both ways. If a theist makes an assertion without evidence, it can be dismissed without evidence. And if an atheist or anti-theist makes an assertion, it too can be dismissed on the same basis.

My atheist friend on Twitter asserted that my blog was failed, ignorant wordplay. Okay, that’s an assertion. Now, back up your assertion with facts. What did I write that demonstrates ignorance? Where does my logic fail? Where does my evidence fail? If you just flatly assert that I’m wrong, yet you can’t tell me why I’m wrong and where I went wrong (especially when everything I’ve written is sourced and footnoted), then frankly, you’re the one who looks pathetic.

So I replied: “Hitchens was stating a broad principle: If you make a claim, back it up with fact. And yes, atheism makes assertions.”

The atheist tweeted back, “#Atheism doesn’t make assertions. You seem confused.”

I replied, “Atheism is your dogma. It blinds you to new information and new ideas.”

The atheist replied: “Why are you confused over the definition of #atheism? It’s very clear. There is no mistake. I can help you if you want. #Atheism is the position where one lacks belief in a god. Therefore, it’s not dogma. To say it’s dogma makes you look ignorant.”

Rather than reply within the 140-character restraints of Twitter, I decided to write this blog entry. I understand why my atheist friend thinks only theists need to provide evidence. I understand why he thinks that atheism makes no assertions. I understand why he denies that atheism is dogma. And I can explain why he’s wrong.

Atheist philosopher Antony Flew (who, late in life, converted to theism) divided the atheist community into two camps, “strong atheism” and “weak atheism.” Strong atheism assertsthat no deities exist. Weak atheism is lack of belief in a deity without an explicit assertion that no deities exist. So my atheist friend on Twitter claims to be (by Flew’s definition) a “weak atheist.”

An assertion that is common to both strong and weak atheism is the assertion of materialism. This assertion states that the entire universe consists of nothing but matter and energy, and all phenomena in the universe, including human consciousness, result from material interactions. Science fiction writer Isaac Asimov typified the materialist view when he wrote:

The molecules of my body, after my conception, added other molecules and arranged the whole into more and more complex form. . . . In the process, I developed, little by little, into a conscious something I call “I” that exists only as the arrangement. When the arrangement is lost forever, as it will be when I die, the “I” will be lost forever, too.

And that suits me fine. No concept I have ever heard, of either a Hell or of a Heaven, has seemed to me to be suitable for a civilized rational mind to inhabit, and I would rather have the nothingness.

In my blog entry, “Who Made God?,” I present what I consider to be a compelling case that this atheist assertion is FALSE. The evidence shows that there is more to the universe than materialism, and that Mind is the ground of all reality. Any fair-minded, objective reader would have to agree that I have presented ideas and evidence that are AT LEASTworthy of consideration.

If, however, you are blinded by your dogma, if you are closed to new ideas and new information and your mind is set in stone, you will not give my ideas fair consideration. You’ll dismiss those ideas in knee-jerk fashion as “claptrap” and “ignorant wordplay.” You’ll mock the author of those ideas as “a pathetic specimen clinging to superstition.” You’ll claim that reading it actually makes you dumber. You’ll say it’s nothing new.

The one thing you will not do is actually examine those ideas and consider the evidence. You won’t even try to challenge the author’s reasoning, because to actually think about these ideas would threaten your dogma. It would mean honestly and objectively asking yourself, “What if the author is right?”

Many people assume the word dogma applies only to religious belief and doctrine. Not true. A dogma is a set of opinions or beliefs that are held with such tenacity that one becomes closed to new ideas and new information. If you find yourself feeling angry or annoyed by the ideas I presented in “Who Made God?,” there’s a good chance you are blinded by your dogma. A non-dogmatic person might disagree and calmly challenge those ideas. Or a non-dogmatic person might simply shrug and walk away. But only a dogmatist becomes hostile and insulting in response to a reasonably expressed viewpoint.

And these comments aren’t directed only at atheists. I have found that there are two groups of people who are hostile to the scientific evidence for God. One group, of course, is dogmatic atheists. The other group is dogmatic Christians. For some reason, extremely dogmatic Christians tend to hate the idea that the existence of God might be provable. They seem to think there is something noble about “blind faith,” belief without evidence.

But without evidence, how can you know what to believe?

Elton Trueblood said, “Faith is not belief without proof, but trust without reservation.” I agree. And once you’ve seen the evidence, once you’ve experienced the proof, then you can trust unreservedly. Whether believer or atheist, we must have the courage to follow the evidence. Bart D. Ehrman put it this way: “The search for truth takes you where the evidence leads you, even if, at first, you don’t want to go there.”

Dogmatic people invariably get mad when the truth pokes holes in their dogma. That’s why this blog is called, “The Truth Will Make You Mad.” Instead of getting mad, set yourself free. If you really want to know the truth, you owe it to yourself to open your mind and examine the evidence.

Who knows? If you actually THINK about my ideas and evidence, you just might find a way to prove me wrong.

______________________________________________

Postscript, September 3, 2012:

The atheist twitterer responded to my blog entry about as I expected. I’ll take the liberty of translating Twitterspeak to English—for example, changing “u” to “you,” “ur” to “your,” and so forth—for the sake of clarity. He tweeted:

“Your blog fails because you continue to be confused over what atheism means. Strong/weak are not real subcategories either.”

“An atheist is one without belief in a god. Strong/weak merely define what view atheists have in addition to atheism.”

“I refer you to my blog in response to your ignorance about atheism.”

His blog delves into the origin of the word atheism to explain the difference between “without belief in a god” versus “a belief that there is no god.” Yeah, I get that. And I explicitly acknowledged that distinction above.

As to whether strong/weak atheism (also called positive/negative atheism) are real subcategories, his argument is not with me but with atheist scholars like Antony Flew and Michael Martin. In the glossary to The Cambridge Companion to Atheism (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007, pages xvii and xviii), Martin writes:

Negative atheism: absence of belief in any god or gods. More narrowly conceived, it is the absence of belief in the theistic God. Cf. positive atheism. . . .

Positive atheism: disbelief in any god or gods. More narrowly conceived, it is disbelief in the theistic God. Cf. negative atheism.

Okay, enough hair-splitting. My atheist friend’s next tweet:

“Until you can come up with actual evidence for a god, you will continue to have the burden of proof, and we will sit, point and laugh at you.”

That burden began to shift as far back as September 1973 when physicist Brandon Carter presented a paper (“Large Number Coincidences and the Anthropic Principle in Cosmology”) at the Copernicus symposium in Kraków, Poland. Carter described some of the odd coincidences in the universe—a multitude of seemingly unrelated laws of physics that appear to be coordinated and fine-tuned to produce life. Carter called this concept “the anthropic principle,” also known as the “fine-tuned universe” concept. I address it in greater detail in “Is Our Universe ‘the Ultimate Artifact’?”

In the years since Brandon Carter delivered that paper at the Kraków symposium, the evidence has been steadily growing that the universe seems to have been deliberately fine-tuned to produce life, and that Mind is essential to the existence of the universe. That is the foundation of the case I have assembled in my blog entries, “Is Our Universe ‘the Ultimate Artifact’?” and “Who Made God?” 

Is the fine-tuned universe proof of the existence of God? Some scientists find it convincing. Others do not. Those who are convinced include theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson, physicist Frank Tipler, astronomer Alan Sandage, and Francis Collins, former head of the Human Genome Project and President Obama’s head of the National Institutes of Health.

Even scientists who are unconvinced recognize that the anthropic evidence is powerful and at least gives the unmistakable appearance of pointing to God. Atheist physicist George Greenstein wrote:

As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency—or, rather, Agency—must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit? …

It is a matter of taste how one deals with that notion. Those who wish are free to accept it, and I have no way to prove them wrong. But I know where I stand. . . . I reject it utterly.

[George Greenstein, The Symbiotic Universe (New York: William Morrow, 1988), pp. 27 and 87.]

So Greenstein clearly states that the anthropic evidence appears to point to God, though he himself rejects that notion. The evidence Greenstein refers to is essentially the evidence I present in “Is Our Universe ‘the Ultimate Artifact’?” I take those ideas even further in “Who Made God?”

Those two blog entries contain about 4800 words of rational scientific evidence, yet they form just a brief introduction to the mountain of evidence that exists. Even so, they dismantle the ignorant atheist canard that there’s “no evidence” for God.

If my atheist friend is correct and the burden of evidence is on me, then hey, no problem, I have delivered the goods. It’s there in those blogs. He and his fellow atheist twitterers are either unwilling or unable to deal with that evidence, because over the past few days, not one of them has challenged or refuted a single word in those blogs.

My atheist friend can continue splitting hairs about the definition of atheism if he likes, and he can “sit, point and laugh” at the evidence and the truth. But the burden is now on my atheist friend to put up or shut up—and to come up with some facts and intelligent reasoning to counter what I have presented.

The atheist twitterer concludes:

“There is no ‘scientific evidence’ for your god. Atheists appear hostile to your irrational beliefs, not your invisible evidence.”

You, the reader, can judge for yourself if these blogs begin to build a case for a Cosmic Designer, as I claim—or if they are nothing but “irrational beliefs” and “invisible evidence,” as my atheist friend claims.

Oh, and one more thing: Christopher Hitchens, author of God is Not Great, has acknowledged that the fine-to universe evidence is “intriguing” and “not trivial.” You can hear it from Hitchens’ own lips at “Christopher Hitchens Makes a Startling Admission.”  Here’s the essential part of Hitchens’ statement [note: when Hitchens says “we,” he means leading atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and himself]:

At some point, certainly, we are all asked which is the best argument you come up against from the other side. I think every one of us picks the fine-tuning one as the most intriguing. . . . Even though it doesn’t prove design, doesn’t prove a Designer . . . you have to spend time thinking about it, working on it. It’s not a trivial [argument]. We all say that.

If Christopher Hitchens, the atheists’ atheist, acknowledged that the fine-tuning evidence is “not trivial,” that it is “most intriguing,” that “you have to spend time thinking about it, working on it,” then anyone who says there is “no scientific evidence” for God is either intellectually dishonest or ignorant.

______________________________________________

Post-postscript:

The atheist twitterer in question has asked that I give out his Twitter username (@TedTheAtheist) and the link to his blog reply. Done.

A person with a fixed idea will always find some way
of convincing himself in the end that he is right.”

Mathematician Atle Selberg

 

 

______________

John MacArthur on a visit to heaven

A Trip to Heaven, Part 3

Revelation 4:6b-11 May 24, 1992 66-18

I want you to turn in your Bible for our time in the Word of God tonight to the fourth chapter of the book of Revelation. I want to finish up this tremendous, tremendous chapter we’ve entitled “A visit to the heavenly throne.”

In the wonderful text of Revelation chapter 4 we are taken to heaven. We are taken there by the Apostle John to see the throne of God. And by the way, this is an experience that very few have had. Isaiah had such an experience in a vision when he saw God on a throne high and lifted up, recorded in Isaiah chapter 6. Ezekiel had such a vision which he records in the first chapter of his prophecy, and there he tells us the majesty and the wonder and the splendor and the glory of his vision of the throne and of God.

And then John has this experience. It says in verse 1, “Behold, a door standing open in heaven, the first voice which I heard like the sound of a trumpet speaking with me said, `Come up here and I will show you what must take place after these things.'” And John then is transformed, as it were, beyond time and space to ascend past all of the heavens that we’re familiar with as we look up into the heaven of heavens and the very throne room of God. He is going to find out what is going to take place in the future. That begins to unfold in chapter 6. Before the actual unfolding of what is going to take place after these things we find in chapters 4 and 5 his experience of viewing the throne of God. And so on the wings of the words penned under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit by the Apostle John here, we take with him this incredible trip to the throne of God.

Now I remind you of what we’ve already learned, the central piece, as it were, in this scene of heaven is the throne. In verse 2 John says, “Immediately I was in the Spirit and behold, a throne was standing in heaven.” This is a set throne. On it sits the ruler of the universe, namely Almighty God.

And then we went through a series of prepositions and we noted that John speaks of “on the throne.” He says in verse 2, “One sitting on the throne, and He who was sitting was like a jasper stone,” that’s a diamond-like stone, you remember, “and a sardius,” that’s a ruby-like stone, “in appearance and there was a rainbow around the throne like an emerald in appearance.” So he tells us who was on the throne. It was none other than Almighty God, shining in brilliant diamond glory with the red representing, no doubt, His provision of sacrifice as well as the flaming fiery judgment that proceeds from the throne against unbelievers.

And then John noted not only what was on the throne, or who was on the throne, but what was “around the throne.” And he says, “Around the throne was a rainbow, not a usual rainbow but one like an emerald in appearance.” Ezekiel, by the way, in his vision saw the same rainbow. We noted for you that it’s probably a symbol of grace and mercy, a symbol of faithfulness for God gave a rainbow to Noah to demonstrate His grace and mercy toward mankind that He would not drown them again and to be a symbol of that promise. So around the throne, first of all, we see a rainbow, symbolizing God’s faithfulness and His grace and mercy.

And then we noted also around the throne in verse 4, twenty-four thrones and upon those thrones twenty-four elders sitting, clothed in white garments and golden crowns on their head. We suggested to you that the twenty-four elders are most likely representatives of the church. We said that this, of course, is symbolic then of a glorified and coronated church. The church now is present in heaven, symbolically seated on thrones represented by the twenty-four elders, and thus we can assume that if the church is in heaven now, there has been a Rapture that has taken place. And so we see then around the throne, a rainbow, and around the throne those coronated saints who have triumphed and are now crowned and wearing the robes that symbolized their eternal righteousness. The fact that they are sitting also indicates that their work is done, unlike the angels who have yet much to do, they have reached the point of their rest.

And then the fourth thing we noted was what was coming “from the throne.” Verse 5 says, “From the throne proceed flashes of lightning and sounds and peals of thunder,” emblems of God’s fiery judgment which is about to break out as we will note in chapter 6. John is caught up, he’s to see what’s about to take place and what is about to take place is fiery furnace judgment, a series of holocausts that break out on the earth as God begins to display His wrath against sin.

And then we noted fifthly another preposition “before the throne.” We find that in verse 5 there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne and they represent the seven-fold Spirit of God. We also noted that before the throne there was, as it were, a sea of glass like crystal. This was a base upon which the throne was set. That crystal platform was there to reflect the glory of God, to refract it like a prism and send His blazing glory through all of the universe.

And so we see the heaven and we see in the heaven of heavens the throne and on the throne is God and around the throne the manifestation of His grace and mercy and faithfulness and the coronated and elevated saints. And from the throne comes the emblems of His fiery judgment and before the throne is the Spirit of God and as well, a platform of crystal that can cause His glory to be reflected. So we see God in His universe rule. We see Him in His glory and His splendor and His beauty and His majesty and His sovereignty and His power and His holiness and His wrath. They’re all on display.

The scene then is the scene of the throne of the glory of Almighty God as He begins to unleash His judgments for the purpose that His Son may take over the earth. The Son, you remember, has the right to the earth. He, after all, is its King of kings and Lord of lords. It has been man’s day but it is about to be the Lord’s day and He will take the earth and give it to His Son who is its rightful heir. And that’s what happens during the time we call the Tribulation, the Great Tribulation, the day of the Lord.

So this incredible vision shows us what is on, around, from and before the throne. We go one step further, as we pick up the text tonight, and that is in verse 6 we see two prepositions combined. It says, “And in the center and around the throne, four living creatures.”

Now here we see four living beings that are both in and around the throne. In the center or in the middle of the throne and around it. It gives the sense of an inner circle moving through and around the throne very close to the presence of God. They’re in it and they’re around it all at the same time in motion, surrounding God and moving. Ezekiel describes them very vividly. They are called the four living creatures from the Greek verb zao, to live. They are living ones, not…not really animals. They shouldn’t probably be called beasts or creatures, that would be a different word, theria, but they are living ones, living beings.

Let me take you to Ezekiel for a moment so you can see the description that Ezekiel gives. In verse 4 he says, “As I looked, behold a storm wind was coming from the north, a great cloud with fire flashing forth continually, and a bright light around it. And in its midst something like glowing metal in the midst of the fire. And within it there were figures resembling four living beings.” And as he describes them, listen to what he says, verse 5, Ezekiel 1, “And this was their appearance. They had human form, each of them had four faces and four wings. Their legs were straight and their feet were like a calf’s hoof. And they gleamed like burnished bronze. Under their wings on their four sides were human hands. As for the faces and wings of the four of them, their wings touched one another, their faces did not turn when they moved, each went straight forward. As for the form of their faces, each had the face of a man, all four had a face of a lion on the right and a face of a bull on the left, and all four had the face of an eagle. Such were their faces. Their wings were spread out above, each had two touching another being, and two covering their bodies. And each went straight forward wherever the Spirit was about to go they would go and without turning as they went. In the midst of the living beings there was something that looked like burning coals of fire, like torches darting back and forth among the living beings. The fire was bright and lightning was flashing from the fire. And the living beings ran two and fro like bolts of lightning.” And that, of course, gives us the picture that John saw when he said they were in and then they were around and we see them in motion.

“Now as I looked at the living beings, behold there was one wheel on the earth beside the living beings for each of the four of them. The appearance of the wheels and their workmanship was like sparkling beryl. And all four of them had the same form. Their appearance and workmanship being as if one wheel were within another. Whenever they moved they moved in any of their four directions without turning as they moved. As for their rims, that is the wheels, they were lofty and awesome and the rims of all four of them were full of eyes round about. And whenever the living beings moved, the wheels moved with them. And whenever the living beings rose from the earth, the wheels rose also. Wherever the Spirit was about to go, they would go in that direction. And the wheels rose close beside them for the spirit of the living beings was in the wheels. Whenever those went, these went, and whenever those stood still, these stood still. And whenever those rose from the earth, the wheels rose close beside them for the spirit of the living beings was in the wheels.

“Now over the heads of the living beings there was something like an expanse, like the awesome gleam of crystal extended over their heads. And under the expanse their wings were stretched out straight, one toward the other. Each one also had two wings covering their bodies on the one side and on the other.

“I also heard the sound of their wings like the sound of abundant waters as they went. Like the voice of the Almighty. A sound of tumult, like the sound of an army camp. Whenever they stood still they dropped their wings. And there came a voice from above the expanse that was over their heads. Whenever they stood still, they dropped their wings.”

You say, “What does all that mean?” Well I’m not sure about the details. But I’ll tell you one thing, he saw something spectacular. He saw these four living creatures with all of these various faces and manifestations. And he saw the spirit of those living creatures in some kind of wheels that were moving and those wheels seemed to be bright and flashing and it was all in motion. This was the original light show, believe me. This was…this was supernatural lasers flashing and refracting through the prisms of these very beings.

Now who are they? Who are these living creatures? These incredibly beautiful and glorious beings who were so utterly indescribable? Don’t try to take everything in Ezekiel chapter 1 and comprehend it, it is just a grandiose description of the indescribable. But we know who they are. Chapter 10 of Ezekiel and verse 15, “Then the cherubim rose up, they are the living

beings that I saw by the river Chebar. Now when the cherubim moved the wheels would go beside them. So when the cherubim lifted up their wings to rise from the ground, the wheels would not turn from beside them. When the cherubim stood still, the wheels would stand still, and when they rose the wheels would rise with them for the spirit of the living beings was in them.”

He’s simply saying that these living beings were the cherubim in blazing light and glory and movement and flashing brilliance, cherubim. Cherubim are angels, that’s the plural of cherub, cherubim are angels frequently referred to in the Old Testament in connection with God’s divine power. For example, in Psalm 80 verse 1, Psalm 99 verse 1 and elsewhere we find the cherubim associated with the power of God.

We also can note that they appear also to be concerned about the holiness of God. They then are in God’s presence and they are guarding His holiness. And they are there for the purpose of expressing His power when He bids them to do that.

In 1 Kings chapter 6 verse 23, “In the inner sanctuary, the building of the temple, he made two cherubim of olive wood, each one ten cubits high. And five cubits was the one wing of the cherub and five cubits the other wing of the cherub.” A cubit is about 18 inches, from the tip of your fingers to your elbow. “The other cherub was ten cubits, both the cherubim were of the same measure and the same form. The height of the one cherub was ten cubits and so was the other cherub. And he placed the cherubim in the midst of the inner house and the wings of the cherubim were spread out so that the wing of the one was touching the one wall and the wing of the other cherub was touching the other wall, so their wings were touching each other in the center of the house. He also overlaid the cherubim with gold.”

Now you know, in the inner sanctuary the Holy of Holies, the cherubim were spread out over the Mercy Seat in the ark of the covenant. And there they are, the symbols guarding the holiness of God, the symbols representing the power of God as He acts against sin. They then are the living creatures. They are most beautiful, they are most magnificent. They are most glorious. They are most indescribable.

I think it might be worth just a moment, in Ezekiel 28 we read more about this kind of angel. You might be surprised to meet one who is described in very similar terms. It says in Ezekiel 28:11, “Again the Word of the Lord came to me saying, `Son of man, take up a lamentation over the king of Tyre and say to him…Thus says the Lord God, you had the seal of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the Garden of God. Every precious stone was your covering, the ruby, the topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx and the jasper, the lapis lazuli, a beautiful blue stone, the turquoise and the emerald and the gold, the workmanship of your settings and sockets was in you on the day that you were created. They were prepared.”

Now listen to verse 14, “You were the anointed…what?…cherub who covers, who’s there to guard God, as it were, to guard His holiness. And I placed you there, you were on the holy mountain of God, you walked in the midst of the stones of fire, you were blameless in your ways from the day you were created.” Who’s he talking about? Satan. “Until unrighteousness was found in you.” One of those living creatures, one of those cherubim who may, by the way, be the same as the seraphim, one of them was Lucifer, son of the morning.

These angelic beings are unique. They are elevated. We know there are ranks of angels and they must have been at the top. In the third chapter in the book of Genesis when the man and woman were cast out of the Garden of Eden, it was cherubim who were placed on the east side of the Garden to guard and keep the tree of life, to keep man from eating the tree of life and living forever and ever in his fallenness.

In the building of the tabernacle, the pattern of which God gave to Moses from heaven, there were cherubim interwoven into the fabric of the veil…the ten curtains that covered the tabernacle. Above the ark of the covenant, as I just noted for you, that contained the Ten Commandments which if a man kept he should live, and if a man broke he will die. There they were, over that solid-gold lid, the cherubim. Throughout the Old Testament Jehovah God is called “The One who dwells between the cherubim.” And so, they were very special angels.

What they look like is very hard to describe and very, very hard to understand. Let’s go back to Revelation and see what we can see and grasp what we can grasp. He says about them, “The four living creatures were full of eyes in front and behind,” and that is precisely what Ezekiel said, he said they were like a wheel, their spirit was like a wheel full of eyes. They are an exalted order of angels. That’s seen by their closeness to the throne, they were in and around it. They certainly are to be distinguished from perhaps what we could call more common angels. There were, for example, in Revelation chapter 7 verse 11, “All the angels standing around the throne and the elders and the four living creatures.”

So they are even sorted out from just the rest of the angels as very special exalted angels. Their task, their duty makes them more elevated, more responsible, more unique if not at all more righteous for all the angels are equally holy.

What sets them apart we find out here. They have eyes everywhere. What does that mean? Their awareness, their alertness. Apparently that’s indicative of their comprehensive knowledge and their ability to see and perceive things. They’re not omniscient, that’s reserved for God alone, but they’re aware of whatever pertains to their duty, to protect and serve holy God and to express His power. Nothing apparently escapes their scrutiny. Again he says down in verse 8, “They had six wings and are full of eyes around and within.” Twice he reminds us that there are eyes everywhere. That’s speaks of their knowledge. They are very knowledgeable. They are the most knowledgeable of angels. And they are aware of the most.

The second thing he says about them in verse 7 has to do with their responsibility. “And the first creature was like a lion and the second creature like a calf and the third creature had a face like that of a man and the fourth creature was like a flying eagle.” Now this is similar to what Ezekiel saw. We don’t expect it to be exact because it is a vision and it is an indescribable one at that, but it’s very, very close. Ezekiel’s cherubim resembled human beings, generally and then had these same kind of characteristics of the lion, the calf, the man and the eagle. And John gives us a simpler description from his viewpoint. Ezekiel’s cherubim had four facial appearances. But as John looks, he only sees one of each of their four faces. He sees the face of a lion or calf, or as Ezekiel says a bull or an ox, a bovine animal. He sees the face of a man and the face of an eagle.

Now what do these faces on these cherubim mean? Ezekiel tells us they all had all the faces, but the way they were turned when John saw them, he saw the one with one face, the other with another and another and another. What does it mean? What do they represent?

Well some have suggested that the lion speaks of untamed creatures, the calf or the bull of domestic creatures, the man of the greatest of all creatures, the eagle representing all the flying creatures. And that the angels are seen in their relation to the created world. That they have some duty and responsibility on behalf of God to tend to the created world.

It is also possible that the lion symbolizes strength and power, the calf symbolizes service, the man symbolizes reason and the eagle symbolizes speed. It may well be then that what you have here are cherubim that are represented as being able to see and be aware of vast amounts of information and action. And that these angels are powerful, dutiful serving, rational, swift beings in discharging their duty. I like to think that they are symbolic in that regard. Again the lion symbolizing strength and power, the calf service rendered, the man reason and the eagle speed. They are swift, they are rational, they are service oriented and they are powerful.

In the Talmud the rabbis wrote, “There are four primary forms of life in God’s creation…man, calf, lion and eagle.” And they felt that creation was represented in those four. In the camp of Israel, three tribes gathered under each of these four banners…several tribes gathered with Reuben, symbolized by a man, several tribes gathered with Dan symbolized by an eagle, several tribes gathered with Ephraim symbolized by the ox or the calf, and several tribes gathered with Judah symbolized by the lion.

So, not only could they represent all of the created order, not only could they represent certain characteristics and attributes of the angels themselves, but it is also reasonable to say that they may even have represented God’s people because in the past God collected His people under the banner of these four. Perhaps these angels then have some special role in the life of Israel.

But for now, they are involved in judgment. And they are very involved in it. In chapter 6 verse 1, “I saw when the Lamb broke one of the seven seals,” the judgment begins with the breaking of the first seal, “and I heard one of the four living creatures saying as with a voice of thunder, `Come.'” And it is this cherub, this one cherub that calls the rider on the white horse that starts the judgments. In chapter 15 of the book of Revelation and verse 7, “One of the four living creatures gave to the seven angels seven golden bowls full of the wrath of God who lives forever and ever.” When it comes time for the bowl judgments and these rapid fire wrath judgments are poured out and the final holocaust takes place in a very brief time as all seven are poured out rapidly, it is the cherubim, one of them who hands over, as it were, the bowl to pour out the final wrath of God.

And so, they are very involved in judgment. They may well have been involved and still may be in some way with the nation Israel who was at one time under their banner, as it were. They may be made manifest here with the various attributes that we noted and they may even have some responsibility over the created order. All of those are possibilities and it’s difficult to be dogmatic and so it’s best perhaps to see them all.

There’s a third element, we see not only something about their…their personal nature or their personal knowledge, something about their responsibility, but thirdly, we note their worship. He says, verse 8, “The four living creatures, each one of them having six wings and then are full of eyes around and within.” Each of them having six wings. That is reminiscent of Isaiah 6 where he sees the seraphim and each of them had six wings. With two they covered their face, remember that, Isaiah 6:2, with two they covered their feet and with two they hovered. And the Hebrew word is like something like a celestial helicopter, just staying in motion. Here the highest order of heavenly beings had six wings…two to cover their face. Why? Because they were created beings and couldn’t look on the full glory of God without being consumed. Two to cover their feet because the very crystal platform on which they stand is holy ground. And with two they hover, ready to do His bidding.

You might note that four of their six wings are related to worship. And only two are related to service. Because worship is always the priority.

And so they have these six wings, just like the seraphim in Isaiah 6:2. They are there in the presence of God and they are adoring and they are worshiping His majesty and His glory. In fact, it tells us about their worship. It says in verse 8, “And day and night they do not cease to say, `Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God, the Almighty, who was and who is and who is to come.'” It is their constant occupation day and night in the eternal sphere to offer God eternal worship. This is their privilege. This is their calling. This is their permanent occupation.

So, we looked at on the throne and we saw and we saw God. We looked around the throne and we saw a rainbow and twenty-four elders. We looked from the throne and lightning flashing, beginning the mood of judgment. We looked before the throne and we saw the Holy Spirit and a crystal platform. We looked in and around the throne and we saw these angelic creatures moving and they’re worshiping and praising God and adoring Him. And also, ready to do His bidding in regard to the created order, in regard to the people of Israel, in regard to judgment.

And that leads us to a final note. Another preposition that I’ll have to insert, let’s call it “toward the throne…toward the throne.” We already saw it in verse 8, “The four living creatures day and night do not cease to say, `Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God, the Almighty who was and who is and who is to come.'” This is toward the throne and they direct worship.

In this chapter, beloved, in this chapter and the next, chapter 5, there are five hymns of praise…five of them in which, now listen carefully, the size of the choir gradually increases. It gradually increases. First here in verse 8 you have a quartet…a quartet of four living beings. You move down in to verse 10 and you add twenty-four elders and you’ve got a choir of twenty-eight voices. You move in to chapter 5 of verse 8 and you’ve got twenty-eight voices but added to them, according to verses 8 to 10, are harps, the orchestration comes in. You go down in to chapter 5 verse 11 and added to the twenty-eight voices and the orchestration come all the angels. And then by the time you get to verse 13, every created thing in heaven on earth and under the earth, on the sea and all things in them is added to it. So here the music begins, praise to God.

There are two parts to this oratorio, this crescendo of music. In chapter 4 you have an oratorio of creation. The Lord God, the Almighty, who was, who is, who is to come…the One who lives forever,” in verse 9. Verse 10, “The One who lives forever.” And then verse 11, “Worthy art Thou to receive,” and so forth, “glory and honor and power, for Thou didst create all things. And because of Thy will they existed and were created.” Here is the music that is the oratorio of creation.

In chapter 5 you have the oratorio of redemption…of redemption. Beyond creation to recreation, “Worthy is the Lamb that was slain, to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing.” And so, you have starting here in verse 8 this thrilling crescendo of praise directed toward the throne…a quartet; twenty-eight voices; twenty-eight voices with instruments; twenty-eight voices, added instruments and all the angels; and to all the angels, every created being in the universe. And first, they praise God for creation, and then they praise God for redemption.

When we pick up this study next time we’re going to go in to all of this glorious crescendo of praise. Suffice it to say for now, we’ve seen the throne, we know who’s on it, we know who’s before it, in and around it, we know what’s coming from it and we know what’s being directed at it. This is a true visit to heaven. And may I suggest to you the proper response…the proper response? It doesn’t tell us what happened to John here, but back in chapter 1, the first time he had a vision it says in verse 17, “I fell at His feet as a dead man.” That is very reminiscent of the experience of Isaiah because back in Isaiah chapter 6 when Isaiah had his vision of heaven, he had a similar response. “Then I said…verse 5, Isaiah 6…Woe is me, I am destroyed for I am a man of unclean lips and I live among a people of unclean lips.”

When John had his first vision, he went into a coma out of sheer fright, panic set in because he knew that if he saw God in His throne, holy God, holy, holy, holy God, that God saw him and God saw his sin and it frightened him into a paralysis. Isaiah had the same response. Woe is me, I am damned, I am ruined, I am sentenced to hell. I have seen God and God has seen me. And if God has seen me, I am done. Ezekiel, “When I saw it,” he says, “I fell on my face.”

It’s the right response. They all had it, same response…fell over in absolute fear. You can’t just take a trip to heaven like this and walk away. You’ve got to realize this is holy God that you have seen. And it ought to shake all of us to the core to realize that He sees us and sees our sin and our iniquity. He is infinitely holy. The holy angels are there, surrounding Him. His holiness blazes forth in judgment. And that should put fear in all of us. But in every case, He manifested His grace. To a frightened panicked Isaiah who thought he was about to be sent to hell, the Lord sent an angel with a coal from off the altar to touch his lips and said your sins are forgiven. To a panicked Ezekiel lying in the dirt face down, He said get up…get up. To John in chapter 1 who had fainted in fear, the hand of the Son of God reached out and touched him and said, “Don’t be afraid.” That’s the wonderful balance.

Let me tell you something, folks. The world is full of people who when confronted by the holiness of God will be consumed. The first time they take a visit to the throne room, they will be consumed because when they get there it’s going to be called the Great White Throne. And all of the ungodly of all of the ages are going to come to that throne and be cast in to the lake of fire which burns with fire and brimstone forever. It’s only when those of us who have been redeemed come into the throne room that we can walk back out. And though we may be frightened, to be exposed to a holy God because of our sin, it is His mercy and grace granted us in Christ that allows him to reach out and say, “Get up, you’re forgiven.” We must have that balance of fear and assurance.

John learned his lesson in chapter 1 and didn’t fall over in chapter 4. How we should rejoice that our God is absolutely holy and yet He is loving and gracious to those who are protected by the righteousness of His Son.

Is a optimistic humanism possible?

_______________

Is a optimistic humanism possible?

Here below is the song DUST IN THE WIND performed by the rock group KANSAS and was written by Kerry Ligren in 1978. I challenge anyone to  read these words of that song given below and refute the idea that accepting naturalistic evolution with the exclusion of God must lead to the nihilistic message of the song!

 

DUST IN THE WIND:

I close my eyes only for a moment, and the moment’s gone

All my dreams pass before my eyes, a curiosity

Dust in the wind, all they are is dust in the wind

Same old song, just a drop of water in an endless sea

All we do crumbles to the ground, though we refuse to see

Dust in the wind, all we are is dust in the wind

Now, don’t hang on, nothing lasts forever but the earth and sky

It slips away, and all your money won’t another minute buy

_________________________________

Kansas – Dust In The Wind

Uploaded on Nov 7, 2009

Music video by Kansas performing Dust In The Wind. (c) 2004 Sony Music Entertainment Inc.

_________________________________

Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life…life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA…life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference. —Richard Dawkins

______________

The vast majority of people believe there is a design or force in the universe; that it works outside the ordinary mechanics of cause and effect; that it is somehow responsible for both the visible and the moral order of the world. Modern biology has undermined this assumption…But beginning with Darwin, biology has undermined that tradition. Darwin in effect asserted that all living organisms had been created by a combination of chance and necessity–natural selection… First, God has no role in the physical world…Second, except for the laws of probability and cause and effect, there is no organizing principle in the world, and no purpose.  (William B. Provine, “The End of Ethics?” in HARD CHOICES ( a magazine companion to the television series HARD CHOICES, Seattle: KCTS-TV, channel 9, University of Washington, 1980, pp. 2-3).

That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; …that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins—all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Bertrand Russell

 

The British humanist H. J. Blackham (1903-2009) put it very plainly: On humanist assumptions, life leads to nothing, and every pretense that it does not is a deceit. If there is a bridge over a gorge which spans only half the distance and ends in mid-air, and if the bridge is crowded with human beings pressing on, one after the other they fall into the abyss. The bridge leads nowhere, and those who are pressing forward to cross it are going nowhere….It does not matter where they think they are going, what preparations for the journey they may have made, how much they may be enjoying it all. The objection merely points out objectively that such a situation is a model of futility“( H. J. Blackham, et al., Objections to Humanism (Riverside, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1967).

 

In the 1986 debate on the John Ankerberg show between Paul Kurtz (1925-2012) and Norman Geisler, Kurtz reacted to the point Blackham was making by asserting:

 

I think you may be quoting Blackham out of context because I’ve heard Blackham speak, and read much of what he said, but Blackham has argued continuously that life is full of meaning; that there are points. The fact that one doesn’t believe in God does not deaden the appetite or the lust for living. On the contrary; great artists and scientists and poets and writers have affirmed the opposite.

 

I read the book FORBIDDEN FRUIT by Paul Kurtz and I had the opportunity to correspond with him but I still reject his view that optimistic humanism withstand the view of nihilism if one accepts there is no God. Christian philosopher R.C. Sproul put it best:

 

Nihilism has two traditional enemies–Theism and Naive Humanism. The theist contradicts the nihilist because the existence of God guarantees that ultimate meaning and significance of personal life and history. Naive Humanism is considered naive by the nihilist because it rhapsodizes–with no rational foundation–the dignity and significance of human life. The humanist declares that man is a cosmic accident whose origin was fortuitous and entrenched in meaningless insignificance. Yet in between the humanist mindlessly crusades for, defends, and celebrates the chimera of human dignity…Herein is the dilemma: Nihilism declares that nothing really matters ultimately…In my judgment, no philosophical treatise has ever surpassed or equaled the penetrating analysis of the ultimate question of meaning versus vanity that is found in the Book of Ecclesiastes. 

________________

Francis Schaeffer noted that Solomon took a look in Ecclesiastes at the meaning of life on the basis of human life standing alone between birth and death “under the sun.” This phrase UNDER THE SUN appears over and over in Ecclesiastes. The Christian Scholar Ravi Zacharias noted, “The key to understanding the Book of Ecclesiastes is the term UNDER THE SUN — What that literally means is you lock God out of a closed system and you are left with only this world of Time plus Chance plus matter.” 

Kerry Livgren is the writer of the song “Dust in the Wind” and he said concerning that song in 1981 and then in 2006:

 1981: “When I wrote “Dust in the Wind” I was  writing about a yearning emptiness that I felt which millions of people identified with because the song was very popular.” 2006:“Dust In the Wind” was certainly the most well-known song, and the message was out of Ecclesiastes. I never ceased to be amazed at how the message resonates with people, from the time it came out through now. The message is true and we have to deal with it, plus the melody is memorable and very powerful. It disturbs me that there’s only part of the [Christian] story told in that song. It’s about someone yearning for some solution, but if you look at the entire body of my work, there’s a solution to the dilemma.”

Ecclesiastes reasons that chance and time have determined the past and will determine the future (9:11-13), and power reigns in this life and the scales are not balanced(4:1). Is that how you see the world? Solomon’s experiment was a search for meaning to life “under the sun.” Then in last few words in Ecclesiastes he looks above the sun and brings God back into the picture: “The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: Fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person. For God will bring every act to judgment.”

You can hear DAVE HOPE and Kerry Livgren’s stories from this youtube link:

(part 1 ten minutes)

(part 2 ten minutes)

There is evidence that points to the fact that the Bible is historically true as Schaeffer pointed out in episode 5 of WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACEThere is a basis then for faith in Christ alone for our eternal hope. This link shows how to do that.

______________

Related posts:

The Secular Attack on Christianity By: Dr. Paul Kurtz, Dr. Norman Geisler; ©1986

___________________ I really enjoyed this program when I saw it in 1986. The Secular Attack on Christianity/Program 6 < The Secular Attack on Christianity By: Dr. Paul Kurtz, Dr. Norman Geisler; ©1986 How could anybody challenge me to perform something self-sacrificing, ever, if I believe that I am the product of chance, plus time, plus the impersonal, […]

Debating with the gentleman Paul Kurtz Part 4

I  understand that Dr. Paul Kurtz passed away at age 86 on October 20, 2012. He was fine gentleman that I had a chance to correspond with and I read several of his books (Forbidden Fruit was his best effort). I did not agree with his secular humanist view but I did find that he […]

Debating with the gentleman Paul Kurtz Part 3

I  understand that Dr. Paul Kurtz passed away at age 86 on October 20, 2012. He was fine gentleman that I had a chance to correspond with and I read several of his books (Forbidden Fruit was his best effort). I did not agree with his secular humanist view but I did find that he […]

Debating with the gentleman Paul Kurtz Part 2

I understand that Dr. Paul Kurtz passed away at age 86 on October 20, 2012. He was fine gentleman that I had a chance to correspond with and I read several of his books (Forbidden Fruit was his best effort). I did not agree with his secular humanist view but I did find that he […]

Debating with the gentleman Paul Kurtz Part 1

I understand that Dr. Paul Kurtz passed away at age 86 on October 20, 2012. He was fine gentleman that I had a chance to correspond with and I read several of his books (Forbidden Fruit was his best effort). I did not agree with his secular humanist view but I did find that he […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 18 “Michelangelo’s DAVID is the statement of what humanistic man saw himself as being tomorrow” (Feature on artist Paul McCarthy)

In this post we are going to see that through the years  humanist thought has encouraged artists like Michelangelo to think that the future was extremely bright versus the place today where many artist who hold the humanist and secular worldview are very pessimistic.   In contrast to Michelangelo’s DAVID when humanist man thought he […]

Part of the reason Antony Flew left atheism can be found in this Paul Davies’ quote “Science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview!”

  Conversation with John Barrow Published on Jun 16, 2012 Templeton Prize 2006, Gifford Lectures 1988 British Academy, 1 June 2012 _______ Many Christians are involved in science and John D. Barrow is one of the leaders of science today. Here is his bio: John D Barrow John D. Barrow was born in London in […]

Is a optimistic humanism possible?

_______________ Is a optimistic humanism possible? Here below is the song DUST IN THE WIND performed by the rock group KANSAS and was written by Kerry Ligren in 1978. I challenge anyone to  read these words of that song given below and refute the idea that accepting naturalistic evolution with the exclusion of God must lead […]

CSICOP experts commented 15 years ago on a lie-detector’s ability to detect one’s repressed belief in God!!!!

In the book, THE DEMON-HAUNTED WORLD: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan.  Sagan writes: The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal is an organization of scientists, academics, magicians, and others dedicated to skeptical scrutiny of emerging or full-blown pseudo-sciences. It was founded by the University of Buffalo philosopher Paul […]

THE DEMON-HAUNTED WORLD: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan. New York: Random House, 1995. 457 pages, extensive references, index. Hardcover; $25.95. PSCF 48 (December 1996): 263.

_____________ THE DEMON-HAUNTED WORLD: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan. New York: Random House, 1995. 457 pages, extensive references, index. Hardcover; $25.95. PSCF 48 (December 1996): 263. Sagan is the David Duncan Professor of Astronomy and Space Sciences at Cornell University. He is author of many best sellers, including Cosmos, which […]

Why Hitler was wrong and why we sacrificed 10,000 men 70 years ago on D Day to stop him!!!!!

Why did we know that we were right and Hitler was wrong? Why did the Allied forces lose about 10,000 men 70 years ago today on June 6, 1994 (D Day)? Was that logical for men to risk their lives in order to help others back home stay safe? I want to look at one of those heroes and then return to these serious philosophic questions.

have done a lot of blog posts in the past about War heroes from Arkansas. Now there seems to be an opportunity to write again on this subject. Last night on the news I saw a story about one of those who fought on D Day 70 years on June 6, 1944 and it was 92-year-old Denman Wolfe who is a Fayetteville, Arkansas resident who landed on Omaha beach as an army ranger. Wolfe says he jumped from the boat into rough water that was over his head. Wolfe said,”Cross the beach as best as you could, you couldn’t stop to think about nothing, you had to move on through…The Germans were up on the hill, mowing us down with machine guns and their 88 artillery. So, people just falling all around you.”

“I’m proud to have been a ranger, yes I really am,” expressed Wolfe. He says the real heroes are the soldiers that lost their lives on D-day.

Albert Camus asserted,”A man without ethics is a wild beast loosed upon the world.” Sounds like a good description of Hitler. Denman Wolfe and his friends were sent to bring Hitler and his friends to justice, and about a year later the Nuremberg Trials were held. Both Hitler and Himmler noted that Christianity’s notion of charity should be “replaced by the ethic of strength over weakness.” If God doesn’t exist then on what basis could we say that Hitler was wrong and why did Wolfe risk his life for others when there was no afterlife to reward good and punish evil? Agnostic Professor Arthur Allen Leff (1935–1981) of Yale Law School put it this way, “As things stand now, everything is up for grabs. Nevertheless, Napalming babies is bad, and starving the poor is wicked. Buying and selling each other is depraved and there is in the world such a thing as evil. [All together now:] Sez who? God help us.” Likewise,  Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821–1881) observed in his novel THE BROTHERS KARAMAZOV, “if there is no God, all things are permissible.”

Judge Roy Moore noted:

Both the British and American prosecutors were expressing something well understood in the law at that time – the law of man and nations is subject to the laws of God and the laws of nature. Sir William Blackstone in his “Commentaries on the Laws of England” in 1765 explained the law of nature in this way, “This law of nature, being co-eval [co-existent] with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this. …”

Our government was created by men that believed that God establishes a basis for laws and that our rights come from God. On that basis and no other could anyone tell Hitler that his laws against the Jews were unjust. Back again to a closer look at what happened back then 70 years ago today.

Saving Private Ryan Omaha Beach Full Scene HD Part 1

Saving Private Ryan Omaha Beach Full Scene HD Part 2

I have no idea what it was like to take the beach at Omaha. However, of all the movies and films I have seen and history books I have read, the opening clips from the movie “Saving Private Ryan” come closest to the horrible conditions our allied soldiers went up against on that day 68 years ago.

Saving Private Ryan opens with a 30-minute cinematic tour de force that is without a doubt one of the finest half-hours ever committed to film. This sequence, a soldier’s-eye view of the D-Day invasion of Normandy, is brilliant not only in terms of technique but in the depth of viewer reaction it generates. It is certainly the most violent, gory, visceral depiction of war that I have ever witnessed on screen. Spielberg spares the viewer nothing of the horrors of battle, using every tactic at his disposal to convey the chaos and senseless waste that lies at the core of any engagement. We are presented with unforgettable, bloody images of bodies being cut to pieces by bullets, limbs blown off, entrails spilling out, and a variety of other assorted examples of carnage. And, when the tide comes in with the waves breaking on the body-strewn beach, the water is crimson. Those who are at all squeamish will find the opening of Saving Private Ryan unbearable. This aspect of the film almost earned it an NC-17 rating; only the fact that Spielberg rigorously avoids even a hint of exploitation convinced the MPAA to award an R.

In addition to showing what happens when projectiles rip into the soft flesh of the human body, the director employs other methods to capture the essence of battle – hand-held cameras, a slight speeding up of the images, muted colors, and several different kinds of film stock. Put it all together, and it adds up to a dizzying, exhausting assault on the senses. As good as the rest of Saving Private Ryan is, and it’s very good, the D-Day attack on Omaha Beach is the sequence that everyone will remember most clearly.

D-Day Landings: June 6, 1944

By dawn on June 6, thousands of paratroopers and glider troops were already on the ground behind enemy lines, securing bridges and exit roads. The amphibious invasions began at 6:30 a.m. The British and Canadians overcame light opposition to capture beaches codenamed Gold, Juno and Sword, as did the Americans at Utah Beach. U.S. forces faced heavy resistance at Omaha Beach, where there were over 2,000 American casualties. However, by day’s end, approximately 156,000 Allied troops had successfully stormed Normandy’s beaches. According to some estimates, more than 4,000 Allied troops lost their lives in the D-Day invasion, with thousands more wounded or missing.

Less than a week later, on June 11, the beaches were fully secured and over 326,000 troops, more than 50,000 vehicles and some 100,000 tons of equipment had landed at Normandy.

For their part, the Germans suffered from confusion in the ranks and the absence of celebrated commander Rommel, who was away on leave. At first, Hitler, believing the invasion was a feint designed to distract the Germans from a coming attack north of the Seine River, refused to release nearby divisions to join the counterattack. Reinforcements had to be called from further afield, causing delays. He also hesitated in calling for armored divisions to help in the defense. Moreover, the Germans were hampered by effective Allied air support, which took out many key bridges and forced the Germans to take long detours, as well as efficient Allied naval support, which helped protect advancing Allied troops.

In the ensuing weeks, the Allies fought their way across the Normandy countryside in the face of determined German resistance, as well as a dense landscape of marshes and hedgerows. By the end of June, the Allies had seized the vital port of Cherbourg, landed approximately 850,000 men and 150,000 vehicles in Normandy, and were poised to continue their march across France.

Victory in Normandy

By the end of August 1944, the Allies had reached the Seine River, Paris was liberated and the Germans had been removed from northwestern France, effectively concluding the Battle of Normandy. The Allied forces then prepared to enter Germany, where they would meet up with Soviet troops moving in from the east.

The Normandy invasion began to turn the tide against the Nazis. A significant psychological blow, it also prevented Hitler from sending troops from France to build up his Eastern Front against the advancing Soviets. The following spring, on May 8, 1945, the Allies formally accepted the unconditional surrender of Nazi Germany. Hitler had committed suicide a week earlier, on April 30.

An American soldier wades through water under heavy artillery and machine-gun fire to reach the beach on the Normandy coast of France, June 6, 1944. It turned out to be the biggest and most important Allied amphibious operation of World War II. (AP Photo/Files-Wartime Pool/Robert Capa)

Photo by ROBERT CAPA

An American soldier wades through water under heavy artillery and machine-gun fire to reach the beach on the Normandy coast of France, June 6, 1944. It turned out to be the biggest and most important Allied amphibious operation of World War II. (AP Photo/Files-Wartime Pool/Robert Capa)

Related posts:

War Heroes from Arkansas can be found here on www.thedailyhatch.org

Below I have the story of Joe Speaks who fought in Europe and was captured twice by the Germans. Photo by Associated Press American GI’s clamber into a landing craft as they prepare to hit the beaches along France’s Normandy coast in June 1944. The World War II operation was part of the massive Allied […]

War Heroes from Arkansas can be found here on www.thedailyhatch.org

Below I have the story of Joe Speaks who fought in Europe and was captured twice by the Germans. Photo by Associated Press American GI’s clamber into a landing craft as they prepare to hit the beaches along France’s Normandy coast in June 1944. The World War II operation was part of the massive Allied […]

War Heroes from Arkansas can be found here on www.thedailyhatch.org

Below I have the story of Joe Speaks who fought in Europe and was captured twice by the Germans. Photo by Associated Press American GI’s clamber into a landing craft as they prepare to hit the beaches along France’s Normandy coast in June 1944. The World War II operation was part of the massive Allied […]

Louis Zamperini: Great American War Hero gave good interview to Jay Leno on Tonight Show last night

Last night on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno I saw this amazing interview of Louis Zamperini. He is truly a great American war hero. Book review: ‘Devil at My Heels’ by Louis Zamperini and David Rensin The author, who spent two years during World War II in Japanese POW camps, tells his life story […]

War Hero Joe Speaks and D Day pictures

 Below I have the story of Joe Speaks who fought in Europe and was captured twice by the Germans. Photo by Associated Press American GI’s clamber into a landing craft as they prepare to hit the beaches along France’s Normandy coast in June 1944. The World War II operation was part of the massive Allied […]

Still Paying for the Civil War by Michael M. Phillips

In 1968 I saw the unranked Ole Miss Rebels defeat the #3 ranked Tennessee Vols in Jackson Mississippi at a highly anticipated game where Archie Manning stole the day as the Rebel quarterback. Little did I know that Lester McClain who was the Vols’ first black player in 1968 was on the field and that […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 17 Francis Schaeffer discusses quotes of Andy Warhol from “The Observer June 12, 1966″ Part C (Feature on artist David Hockney plus many pictures of Warhol with famous friends)

________________ Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode VII – The Age of Non Reason   Francis Schaeffer- How Should We Then Live? -8- The Age of Fragmentation Joseph Rozak· https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEmwy_dI2j0   ___________________________ ___________________________ ___________________ Miles Davis and Andy below: ______________________ Dali and Warhol below: ________- __________________ Francis Schaeffer with his son Franky pictured below. Francis and Edith (who passed away in 2013) opened L’ Abri in 1955 in Switzerland. How Should […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 16 Francis Schaeffer discusses quotes of Andy Warhol from “The Observer June 12, 1966″ Part B (Feature on artist James Rosenquist plus many pictures of Warhol with famous friends)

_________ John, Yoko and Warhol pictured below: ________________________ The Clash meets Warhol: ______________________ ________________ ________ Andy Warhol and members of The Factory: Gerard Malanga, poet; Viva, actress; Paul Morrissey, director; Taylor Mead, actor; Brigid Polk, actress; Joe Dallesandro, actor; Andy Warhol, artist, New York, October 9, 1969 (picture below)   _____________________ Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR […]

The Death of a (Former) Atheist — Antony Flew, 1923-2010 Antony Flew’s rejection of atheism is an encouragement, but his rejection of Christianity is a warning. Rejecting atheism is simply not enough, by Al Mohler

Discussion (1 of 3): Antony Flew, N.T. Wright, and Gary Habermas Uploaded on Sep 22, 2010 A discussion with Antony Flew, N.T. Wright, and Gary Habermas. This was held at Westminster Chapel March, 2008 ______________________ Making Sense of Faith and Science Uploaded on May 16, 2008 Dr. H. Fritz Schaefer confronts the assertion that one cannot believe […]

One of my biggest pro-life heroes in Little Rock is my good friend Dr. Orman Simmons.

One of my biggest pro-life heroes in Little Rock is my good friend Dr. Orman Simmons. Dr. Orman Winfield Simmons An obstetrician/gynecologist whose faith guides his practice, Simmons says he has brought several thousand people into this world. By Linda Haymes This article was published June 23, 2013 at 2:55 a.m. There has been one steadfast […]

CSICOP experts commented 15 years ago on a lie-detector’s ability to detect one’s repressed belief in God!!!!

In the book, THE DEMON-HAUNTED WORLD: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan.  Sagan writes:

The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal is an organization of scientists, academics, magicians, and others dedicated to skeptical scrutiny of emerging or full-blown pseudo-sciences. It was founded by the University of Buffalo philosopher Paul Kurtz in 1976. I’ve been affiliated with it since its beginning. Its acronym, CSICOP, is pronounced sci-cop C as if it’s an organization of scientists performing a police function  CSICOP publishes a bimonthly periodical called The Skeptical Inquirer. On the day it arrives, I take it home from the office and pore through its pages, wondering what new misunderstandings will be revealed (p. 299).

Back in the late 1990’s I corresponded with many scholars from CSICOP concerning the lie-detector’s ability to detect one’s repressed belief in God. I have a good friend who is a street preacher who preaches on the Santa Monica Promenade in California and during the Q/A sessions he does have lots of atheists that enjoy their time at the mic. When this happens he  always quotes Romans 1:18-19 (Amplified Bible) ” For God’s wrath and indignation are revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who in their wickedness REPRESS and HINDER the truth and make it inoperative. For that which is KNOWN about God is EVIDENT to them and MADE PLAIN IN THEIR INNER CONSCIOUSNESS, because God  has SHOWN IT TO THEM,”(emphasis mine). Then he  tells the atheist that the atheist already knows that God exists but he has been suppressing that knowledge in unrighteousness. This usually infuriates the atheist.

My friend draws some large crowds at times and was thinking about setting up a lie detector test and see if atheists actually secretly believe in God. He discussed this project with me since he knew that I had done a lot of research on the idea about 20 years ago.

Nelson Price in THE EMMANUEL FACTOR (1987) tells the story about Brown Trucking Company in Georgia who used to give polygraph tests to their job applicants. However, in part of the test the operator asked, “Do you believe in God?” In every instance when a professing atheist answered “No,” the test showed the person to be lying. My pastor Adrian Rogers used to tell this same story to illustrate Romans 1:19 and it was his conclusion that “there is no such thing anywhere on earth as a true atheist. If a man says he doesn’t believe in God, then he is lying. God has put his moral consciousness into every man’s heart, and a man has to try to kick his conscience to death to say he doesn’t believe in God.”

It is true that polygraph tests for use in hiring were banned by Congress in 1988.  Mr and Mrs Claude Brown on Aug 25, 1994  wrote me a letter confirming that over 15,000 applicants previous to 1988 had taken the polygraph test and EVERY TIME SOMEONE SAID THEY DID NOT BELIEVE IN GOD, THE MACHINE SAID THEY WERE LYING.

It had been difficult to catch up to the Browns. I had heard about them from Dr. Rogers’ sermon but I did not have enough information to locate them. Dr. Rogers referred me to Dr. Nelson Price and Dr. Price’s office told me that Claude Brown lived in Atlanta. After writing letters to all 9 of the entries for Claude Brown in the Atlanta telephone book, I finally got in touch with the Browns.

Adrian Rogers also pointed out that the Bible does not recognize the theoretical atheist.  Psalms 14:1: The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.”  Dr Rogers notes, “The fool is treating God like he would treat food he did not desire in a cafeteria line. ‘No broccoli for me!’ ” In other words, the fool just doesn’t want God in his life and is a practical atheist, but not a theoretical atheist. Charles Ryrie in the The Ryrie Study Bible came to the same conclusion on this verse.

Here are the conclusions of the experts I wrote in the secular world concerning the lie detector test and it’s ability to get at the truth:

Professor Frank Horvath of the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University has testified before Congress concerning the validity of the polygraph machine. He has stated on numerous occasions that “the evidence from those who have actually been affected by polygraph testing in the workplace is quite contrary to what has been expressed by critics. I give this evidence greater weight than I give to the most of the comments of critics” (letter to me dated October 6, 1994).

There was no better organization suited to investigate this claim concerning the lie detector test than the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP). This organization changed their name to the Committe for Skeptical Inquiry in 2006. This organization includes anyone who wants to help debunk the whole ever-expanding gamut of misleading, outlandish, and fraudulent claims made in the name of science.

I read The Skeptical Review(publication of CSICOP) for several years during the 90’s and I would write letters to these scientists about taking this project on and putting it to the test.  Below are some of  their responses (15 to 20 years old now):

1st Observation: Religious culture of USA could have influenced polygraph test results.
ANTONY FLEW  (formerly of Reading University in England, now deceased, in a letter to me dated 8-11-96) noted, “For all the evidence so far available seems to be of people from a culture in which people are either directly brought up to believe in the existence of God or at least are strongly even if only unconsciously influenced by those who do. Even if everyone from such a culture revealed unconscious belief, it would not really begin to show that — as Descartes maintained— the idea of God is so to speak the Creator’s trademark, stamped on human souls by their Creator at their creation.”

2nd Observation: Polygraph Machines do not work. JOHN R. COLE, anthropologist, editor, National Center for Science Education, Dr. WOLF RODER, professor of Geography, University of Cincinnati, Dr. SUSAN BLACKMORE,Dept of Psychology, University of the West of England, Dr. CHRISTOPHER C. FRENCH, Psychology Dept, Goldsmith’s College, University of London, Dr.WALTER F. ROWE, The George Washington University, Dept of Forensic Sciences, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences.

3rd Observation: The sample size probably was not large enough to apply statistical inference. (These gentlemen made the following assertion before I received the letter back from Claude Brown that revealed that the sample size was over 15,000.) JOHN GEOHEGAN, Chairman of New Mexicans for Science and Reason, Dr. WOLF RODER, and Dr WALTER F. ROWE (in a letter dated July 12, 1994) stated, “The polygraph operator for Brown Trucking Company has probably examined only a few hundred or a few thousand job applicants. I would surmise that only a very small number of these were actually atheists. It seems a statistically insignificant (and distinctly nonrandom) sampling of the 5 billion human beings currently inhabiting the earth. Dr. Nelson Price also seems to be impugning the integrity of anyone who claims to be an atheist in a rather underhanded fashion.”

4th Observation: The question (Do you believe in God?)  was out of place and it surprised the applicants. THOMAS GILOVICH, psychologist, Cornell Univ., Dr. ZEN FAULKES, professor of Biology, University of Victoria (Canada), ROBERT CRAIG, Head of Indiana Skeptics Organization, Dr. WALTER ROWE, 
 
5th Observation: Proof that everyone believes in God’s existence does not prove that God does in fact exist. PAUL QUINCEY, Nathional Physical Laboratory,(England), Dr. CLAUDIO BENSKI, Schneider Electric, CFEPP, (France),
6th Observation: Both the courts and Congress recognize that lie-detectors don’t work and that is why they were banned in 1988.  (Governments and the military still use them.)
Dr WALTER ROWE, KATHLEEN M. DILLION, professor of Psychology, Western New England College.
7th Observation:This information concerning Claude Brown’s claim has been passed on to us via a tv preacher and eveybody knows that they are untrustworthy– look at their history. WOLF RODER.
______________
Solomon wisely noted in Ecclesiastes 3:11 “God has planted eternity in the heart of men…” (Living Bible). No wonder Bertrand Russell wrote in his autobiography, “It is odd, isn’t it? I feel passionately for this world and many things and people in it, and yet…what is it all? There must be something more important, one feels, though I don’t believe there is. I am haunted. Some ghosts, for some extra mundane regions, seem always trying to tell me something that I am to repeat to the world, but I cannot understand that message.”
Gene Emery, science writer for Providence Journal-Bulletin is a past winner of the CSICOP “Responsibility in Journalism Award” and he had the best suggestion of all when he suggested, “Actually, if you want to make a good case about whether Romans 1:19 is true, arrange to have a polygraph operator (preferably an atheist or agnostic) brought to the next CSICOP meeting. (I’m not a member of CSICOP, by the way, so I can’t give you an official invitation or anything.) If none of the folks at that meeting can convince the machine that they truly believe in God, maybe there is, in fact, an innate willingness to believe in God.”
_____________
____________
Let me share a story from a former atheist named Jamie Lash:

DOES GOD BELIEVE IN ATHEISTS?

 

I grew up as an atheist. I thought that the reason I didn’t believe was the lack of evidence that I could see or touch. I kept asking God to show me a sign if He was really there. He didn’t. Despite nine months of searching, I was just as alienated from God as I had ever been.

I remember the shock it was when God revealed to me that what I thought was the obstacle wasn’t the obstacle at all! The obstacle was pride and hardness of heart. It wasn’t a head problem; it was a heart problem. I had to come to the place where I was willing to let God be God over my life. Was I willing to confess (i.e. admit) that Jesus is Lord?

Years ago Adrian Rogers counseled with a NASA scientist and his severely depressed wife. The wife pointed to her husband and said, “My problem is him.” She went on to explain that her husband was a drinker, a liar, and an adulterer. Dr. Rogers asked the man if he were a Christian. “No!” the man laughed. “I’m an atheist.”

“Really?” Dr. Rogers replied. “That means you’re someone who knows that God does not exist.”

“That’s right,” said the man.

“Would it be fair to say that you don’t know all there is to know in the universe?”

“Of course.”

“Would it be generous to say you know half of all there is to know?”

“Yes.”

“Wouldn’t it be possible that God’s existence might be in the half you don’t know?”

“Okay, but I don’t think He exists.”

“Well then, you’re not an atheist; you’re an agnostic. You’re a doubter.”

“Yes, and I’m a big one.”

“It doesn’t matter what size you are. I want to know what kind you are.”

“What kinds are there?”

“There are honest doubters and dishonest doubters. An honest doubter is willing to search out the truth and live by the results; a dishonest doubter doesn’t want to know the truth. He can’t find God for the same reason a thief can’t find a policeman.”

“I want to know the truth.”

“Would you like to prove that God exists?”

“It can’t be done.”

“It can be done. You’ve just been in the wrong laboratory. Jesus said, ‘If any man’s will is to do His will, he will know whether my teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority’ (John 7:17). I suggest you read one chapter of the book of John each day, but before you do, pray something like this, ‘God, I don’t know if You’re there, I don’t know if the Bible is true, I don’t know if Jesus is Your Son. But if You show me that You are there, that the Bible is true, and that Jesus is Your Son, then I will follow You. My will is to do your will.”

The man agreed. About three weeks later he returned to Dr. Rogers’s office and invited Jesus Christ to be his Savior and Lord.

A man might be convinced that he’s being very sincere in his search for God, but until he humbles himself, he will never find Him.

                 

— Jamie Lash  

Related posts:

Carl Sagan’s search for the of meaning of life

________________ Kansas – Dust In The Wind “Live” HD Rolling Stones: “Satisfaction!” U2 Still Haven’t Found (with lyrics) Carl Sagan appears on CBC to discuss the importance of SETI [Carl Sagan Archives] __________________________________________________ On December 5, 1995, I got a letter back from Carl Sagan and I was very impressed that he took time to answer […]

Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part F “Carl Sagan’s views on how God should try and contact us” includes film “The Basis for Human Dignity”

I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control  and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]

Carl Sagan v. Nancy Pearcey

On March 17, 2013 at our worship service at Fellowship Bible Church, Ben Parkinson who is one of our teaching pastors spoke on Genesis 1. He spoke about an issue that I was very interested in. Ben started the sermon by reading the following scripture: Genesis 1-2:3 English Standard Version (ESV) The Creation of the […]

Review of Carl Sagan book (Part 4 of series on Evolution)

Review of Carl Sagan book (Part 4 of series on Evolution) The Long War against God-Henry Morris, part 5 of 6 Uploaded by FLIPWORLDUPSIDEDOWN3 on Aug 30, 2010 http://www.icr.org/ http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWA2http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWASGhttp://www.fliptheworldupsidedown.com/blog _______________________ I got this from a blogger in April of 2008 concerning candidate Obama’s view on evolution: Q: York County was recently in the news […]

Review of Carl Sagan book (Part 3 of series on Evolution)

Review of Carl Sagan book (Part 3 of series on Evolution) The Long War against God-Henry Morris, part 4 of 6 Uploaded by FLIPWORLDUPSIDEDOWN3 on Aug 30, 2010 http://www.icr.org/ http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWA2http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWASGhttp://www.fliptheworldupsidedown.com/blog______________________________________ I got this from a blogger in April of 2008 concerning candidate Obama’s view on evolution: Q: York County was recently in the news […]

Carl Sagan versus RC Sproul

At the end of this post is a message by RC Sproul in which he discusses Sagan. Over the years I have confronted many atheists. Here is one story below: I really believe Hebrews 4:12 when it asserts: For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the […]

Review of Carl Sagan book (Part 4 of series on Evolution)jh68

Review of Carl Sagan book (Part 4 of series on Evolution) The Long War against God-Henry Morris, part 5 of 6 Uploaded by FLIPWORLDUPSIDEDOWN3 on Aug 30, 2010 http://www.icr.org/ http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWA2http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWASGhttp://www.fliptheworldupsidedown.com/blog _______________________ This is a review I did a few years ago. THE DEMON-HAUNTED WORLD: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl […]

Review of Carl Sagan book (Part 3 of series on Evolution)

Review of Carl Sagan book (Part 3 of series on Evolution) The Long War against God-Henry Morris, part 4 of 6 Uploaded by FLIPWORLDUPSIDEDOWN3 on Aug 30, 2010 http://www.icr.org/ http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWA2http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWASGhttp://www.fliptheworldupsidedown.com/blog______________________________________ I was really enjoyed this review of Carl Sagan’s book “Pale Blue Dot.” Carl Sagan’s Pale Blue Dot by Larry Vardiman, Ph.D. […]

Atheists confronted: How I confronted Carl Sagan the year before he died jh47

In today’s news you will read about Kirk Cameron taking on the atheist Stephen Hawking over some recent assertions he made concerning the existence of heaven. Back in December of 1995 I had the opportunity to correspond with Carl Sagan about a year before his untimely death. Sarah Anne Hughes in her article,”Kirk Cameron criticizes […]

My correspondence with George Wald and Antony Flew!!!

During the 1990′s I actually made it a practice to write famous atheists and scientists that were mentioned by Adrian Rogers and Francis Schaeffer and challenge them with the evidence for the Bible’s historicity and the claims of the gospel. Usually I would send them a cassette tape of Adrian Rogers’ messages “6 reasons I know […]

_______________