SermonAudio.com | Ken Ham Fires Back at Christians Who Blame Creationists for ‘Mass Exodus of Youth From the Church’


SermonAudio.com | Ken Ham Fires Back at Christians Who Blame Creationists for ‘Mass Exodus of Youth From the Church’.

Ham is right. Anyone who blames Creationism – which is what the Bible preaches – for children leaving churches is completely confused.

“These people preach the Bible! And that’s why kids leave it!!!!”

Anyone see anything wrong with that argument?

If you want to know why the kids are leaving churches, it’s because… they’re not saved. Now, when little Cindy makes her profession of faith at 5 years old, it’s because she’s a good girl who wants to make everyone happy. How can a 5 or 6 year old understand sin, and the consequences thereof? Ten years later when Cindy leaves her church, it’s because of… well, unbelief, sin and rebellion. It’s because she can’t yet come to a place where she can understand that Christians are fallen people, still struggling with a sin nature. So she calls it “hypocrisy” because she doesn’t understand.

When Cindy or little Peter get older (or Bobby or Greg), they finally can understand what sin is. What the consequences are. They then can be saved. Then finally they make a real profession of faith, and get saved… and suddenly realize all those adults they thought were hypocrites were no different from… well, you and me. We’re fallen beings. We strive to live up to God’s word, and miserably fail on a daily basis.

Now, can someone explain to me how preaching what the Bible clearly teaches can possibly drive people away from Christianity?

Advertisements

An Open Response To John Ankerberg


The Institute for Creation Research.

It’s worse than I thought with Mr. Ankerberg. I was a LITTLE hesitant to¬† expose this man, but the more I’m reading of him, the more I’m realizing we’re seeing a very ddangerous trend with Mr. Ankerberg.

His statement of faith on his website has the same old tired “We believe in the Scripture of the Old and New Testaments as inspired by God and inerrant in the original writings…” (direct quote from his statement of faith).

Bottom line – John Ankerberg does not believe in a literal six day creation, but in evolution. He does not believe the Bible is inspired. He opposes Fundamentalists at every opportunity. He champions all “Christians”, regardless of beliefs, uniting in brotherhood, in opposition to Romans 16:17.

If someone in my congregation came to me and told me they believed this way, I’d be VERY worried about them and their salvation.

If you don’t believe the Bible, where do you start to justify your beliefs??? If, as Ken Ham points out, you don’t believe in a literal six day creation, what’s the next fundamental Christian doctrine you’re going to question? The deity of Christ? The ressurection of Christ?

I seriously recommend avoiding Mr. Ankerberg and his TV show.

Proofs for God’s Existence


I used to hear it all the time, that “god is a mystery.” It used to just baffle me. How can there be no proof for God’s existence, and yet so many people stupidly believe?

Eventually, I applied my intellect to it, and found out – I was the stupid one. The proof is all around you.

When I did my series on Atheism, I introduced the math expression “X to the 0 power equals one”. An atheist commented that he laughed at my math.

Uh… grab a scientific calculator, type it in. 165 exponentiated to the zero power is… uhhhhh…

one.

237 to the zero power is… uhhhh…

one.

It’s a universal constant.

Lets switch up, and turn to Newtonian physics. Newton was WAAAAAAY ahead of his time. Every action has an equal but opposite reaction. We all learned that in sixth grade, right? Well, it has little to do with gay marriage, abortion, communism or a Middle Eastern religion that is being pushed on our children today, so it’s probably not even taught in schools any more.

According to Newtonian physics, of something is moving, it;’s moving because something imparted energy to it, causing the motion, right?

okay, good.

Think about that.

If the universe was created, it means something caused it to spring into being. The standard line is, “all the matter in the universe was compressed into a tiny spot, smaller than the period on this page.”

Really?

Where did it come from? What compressed it? You’re not answering the problem, you’re simply ducking the question.

“then the dot exploded.”

What gave it the necessary energy to explode? That’s one the astronomers keep ducking.

Where did the universal laws come from? Who put them into place? Standard theories of evolution cannot answer that question.

This is known as the problem of the clockmaker, to use the logic name for it. We see a clock, and it cannot just have come to pass. There must be a clock maker. and if he’s not continually winding the clock, the clock would run down.

It’s also known as Deux Ex Machina, the ghost in the machine. Something makes everything happen, and sets everything in motion, but we don’t know what it is.

Physicists call it the “god particle”. They see the evidence of something causing everything to happen, and again, they beg the question by insisting its a created particle.

What created it? What set it into motion? What determined that protons would be positive, electrons negative? What determined this “god particle” would have so many extreme powers and abilities?

Occam’s Razor cuts both ways. When we are presented with lack of explanations, with wildly contradicting theories and hypotheses (many of which depend on other hypotheses long since discarded by the scientific community like the Big Bang) we are left with one possible solution… the least complicated.

I’ve presented several proofs for it already. God.

Many atheists are pretty book smart. I was. Here’s the challenge – examine it honestly. And if you’re honest, you’ll admit that you’ve proceeded from the same line of thinking as Michael Crichton in “The lost world” that, “…the only thing that explains everything is creationism.. but that’s just wrong.”

How can it be wrong? Try this – you’re pretty smart. Approach it from the other side. try to prove God’s existence, using the facts out there. It’s remarkably easy to do.

Rock of Offense


The big problem with apologists is this –

we’re often like an engine, ready to pull a heavy load. When there’s no load there, the engine revs VERY highly, and can break down.

Until God places me over a congregation, it’s as if I just FESTER to prove Christianity to everyone!

Alas, in the United States, it’s becoming increasingly more illegal to do so (despite the Constitution of the United States, which specifically orders Congress not to pass laws infringing upon the right to say whatever I want).

Let me first address an issue.

Some Atheists are often aggrieved if I attempt to share the gospel. They claim they are offended.

OK, I’ll bite. How can you claim to be offended by something you don’t believe exists?

Some think Jesus Christ is dead and gone. Some think I’m a fool to believe in Him. That’s fine. You have absolutely EVERY right to be think that way. However, please consider the fact that you possibly may be sincerely wrong and go to Hell forever. I on the other hand… I am, out of concern for you, trying to get you saved. Yes. I admit it. I don’t want to see you go to Hell.

But if I talk to you about Jesus Christ, how can that possibly offend you?

A couple of the atheists that have come to this blog have been on the attack, complete with ad hominem attacks. A couple have been downright nice to deal with, and what I’m writing about here is most certainly not aimed at them, nor is about them. I enjoyed my exchanges with Atomic Mutant, AllAlt, and there was a very nice guy who’s blogger name escapes me, but was something like “formerChristian”. Sorry – I get bad with names.

now let me flip an argument upside down.

Could it be you are offended because you DO believe what I’m saying, but you just don’t want to have to admit it to yourself?

I mention Hell, and you get angry. Why? I want you to think about that for a minute, very seriously. I didn’t bat an eye when you talked about Lemuria! Want my opinion on where Atlantis is? Crete. You’re free to disagree with me, because on things I haven’t studied, I reserve the right to be wrong.

I mention Jesus Christ, and you get offended. I’m hard pressed to think of anyone who I believe died that the very mention of their name makes me angry.

New Agers get offended, but hey – they have their OWN Jesus! A long hair hippie in a robe and sandals! And he spouts Tibetan philosophy, according to them. So if you’ve got a counterfeit Jesus, why should it offend you?

Because, very possibly, deep down inside… you believe me.

Here’s some advice. Get saved. Repent. Time is running out.

Atheism & Evolution Answered 29 – Conclusion


So far, we’ve examined:

  • There is an absolute moral standard in the universe.
  • There is something greater than myself
  • That something set up those absolute moral standards.
  • That Something greater who has set up moral standards will someday judge me according to those standards.
  • If the Universe exists, it either has always been there, or it has been created.
  • If it was created, it had a creation.
  • If it had a creation, it had a creator.
  • If I see something moving, I recognize that a force or energy was applied to that something to make it move.
  • A+B=C. If C = 0 and A =0 then B = 0. If A =0 and B=0, then C cannot equal “Everything”
  • There’s no reason why we have universal laws.
  • If we did not have protons, would the laws of nature work? No. By that very concept, we identify that the kinds of materials the universe is made of are DESIGNED to cooperate with the very laws that were put in place.
  • It is nearly impossible to know A+B=c if you don’t know the value of A or B
  • The same scientist who popularized the Big Bang theorry also proposed the Oscillating State theory, which is contradictory
  • Red light spectrum shifts may be objects receding from us, gravity bending the light, or objects between us and the star. We cannot say for sure at this time.
  • There is not enough background radiation to account for the Big Bang
  • radio waves from space are probably just the sounds of comets, stars and planets
  • Triangulation to determine the distance of starts is not accurate past a certain point, as the error factor becomes too great
  • The laws of thermodynamics prevent the Big Bang or Evolution for that matter to be valid science
  • Gambler’s Ruin decrees that sooner or later the gambler loses – so the Big Bang and Evolution should have degenerated into chaos and death long before life arose.
  • Space is a vacuum. Prior to the creation of the universe, there was nothing to slow down particles once accelerated. After the Big Bang, all the subatomic particles should have just kept flinging on into space… forever.
  • There was nothing to cause the subatomic particles to form atoms and molecules. Still no satisfactory explanation from Science how this happened.
  • Gas is too nebulous and lacks sufficient weight and mass to start the attraction of elements to one another, and would not have compacted into ultra-dense objects to become stars.
  • We lack discovery of any active proto-stars or stage 1 stars, required for the theory of the birth of stars.
  • We lack any organizing external force to cause any of the elements to change into heavy metals such as Uranium neccessary to cause the star to explode from compacting.
  • If the first and second laws of Thermodynamics prevent all of this from “Just happening”, what external force caused it to happen?
  • Compacting gasses requires some external force.
  • Gas is composed of elements very low on the periodics table. It has VERY little weight, and almost no mass.
  • Science truly has no way to explain stars, solar systems and galaxies.
  • Science has conflicting theories about how planets formed, all of which lack evidence
  • We should be crowded with plutoids and planets if the Universe is as old as Evolutionists claim – and yet we’re not.
  • According to evolutionists, the earth had no air when the planet was first created, and the rocks absorbed it. (Huh?)
  • most so-called fossil evidence is actually plaster. Many exhibits are constructed from a few actual bones. One species of “primitive man” was constructed from a single tooth, which turned out to be… from a pig. Oops.
  • The Schoolbooks still present a long time between the creation of the Earth, and the origin of life – but Gould wrote that the evidence shows that life arose on Earth “as soon as it cooled enough to support it.”
  • A simple display of logic blows huge holes in the theory of Evolution – any living thing that spontaneously was created would have to have a way to take in nutrition, process that nutrition, excrete wastes, and duplicate itself. The odds against that rise so phenomenally high that it has to be discarded as impossible.
  • The Miller-Urey experiments were deliberately conducted in a way to produce favorable results – and still produced nothing more than amino acids that could not have supported life, and were insufficient in number to have sustained life.
  • Scientists are now convinced that all of the parameters used by Miller-Urey were incorrect.
  • If science is still going to champion Miller-Urey, they need to redo the experiment with the correct parameters.
  • I will buy and mail a King James Bible at my own expense to any scientist who reduplicates the Miller-Urey experiments with the correct parameters, for helping to disprove evolution.
  • The odds of a complete DNA-RNA strand and the correct m-RNA, Amoni Acids, s-RNA etc. arising by chance is 10 to the 600th power – far beyond the level mathematicians dismiss as impossible.
  • The odds of dropping 200 decks of cards and having them all land in order by suite are roughly comparible to the odds of DNA-RNA arising by chance.
  • The argument of “top of the food chain” is flawed.
  • There are many animals with more chromosomes than human beings, including shrimp and crayfish. At least we have more than a mouse.
  • the various methods of carbon dating an object make a number of assumptions, some of which have already been proven inaccurate, as far back as 1930
  • The various methods of carbon dating an object fail to take many variables into account that can skew the results greatly.
  • Science once advocated “Spontaneous generation”, invented to explain the appearance of mice in clothing left in a corner. Science has returned to that theory.
  • The major error of spontaneous generation is that you’d need two “happy monsters” appearing at roughly the same narrow window of time, and very close to one another geographically. The odds against this are now multiplied so drastically they fall far below the “Vanishing point” of probability.
  • mutations are usually the result of something lost or corrupted in the genetic code (or the random repeating of existing code, such as a sixth finger), and not added.
  • There are no historic examples of any mutations adding something to their genetic code and passing them on down to successive generations.
  • most mutations are hazardous to the host, and usually result in their early death
  • DNA-RNA is locked like a combination lock, and makes evolution and “adaptation”/”natural selection” impossible
  • Evolutionists rarely consider the hundreds of transitory stages required to deviate from one species to another.
  • The steps of transitory change from T-Rex to Pelican creates so many difficulties for survival as to contradict “adaptation”/”natural selection”
  • we have no “fossil record” showing transitory phases between any one kind of animal and another, when we should see thousands of transitory fossils between T-rex and bird, and anyn other kind of animal and any other. Embarassingly, we’ve got nothing except conjecture for two animals whom we have only a couple of bones from, and whom scientists posit as two intermediary stages for whales.
  • the slow developement of wings on the T-rex would have made it impossible for him to evolve, as eventually the transitory stages would have killed by starvation all Trexes that reached the midway point.
  • There’s no need to T-rex to have evolved smaller if he’d developed suddenly wings and flight.
  • Animals do not evolve smaller. they end up that way temporarily if they are deprived sufficient food during development.
  • A catastrophe would have been too quick for the T-rex to begin a slow, gradual evolution to bird.
  • All the fossil record proves is that these animals died.
  • The Cambrian Explosion refutes the theory of evolution, in that all the lving beings on earth appeared at once, fully formed, with no transitory forms
  • The Geologic Column is not consistent worldwide, and often does not conform to the theory
  • The geologic column is far more consistent with a worldwide flood than with the “Billions of years/slow gradual rise and change of life” model that science likes to portray
  • All the fossil record proves is that something died
  • petrification takes places much faster than evolution claims, perhaps only a year.
  • By Darwin’s own admission, his theory relies on progressive, slight modifications over a large period of time to create organs – or his theory breaks down.
  • The respiratory, circulatory and pulminary systems are all interrelated – how did this evolve? The absence of one causes the host animal to die.
  • How could an animal live with only one of the first five stages of any of those systems?
  • What advantage would the host animal gain from having a rudimentary heart, but no blood or oxygen?
  • What advantage was passed onto the host animal from the first elementary five stages of the development of the eye? There must be a demonstrable advantage for the host animal to pass on that genetic code.
  • The Trilobite, supposedly one of the first animals, had an incredibly sophisticated eye – no rudimentary eye can be seen.
  • There are only 26 places on earth where the fossil record for the most part resembles the geologic column. There are over 50,000 that do not.
  • Evolution has no proof of cross-kind divergence (rodent to dog), but rather, turns to inter-kind breeding (Wolf to German Sherpherd) to prove its theory
  • There is no missing link – there should be millions of missing links. The whole chain is missing.
  • Science is observable and demonstrable. Evolution is neither.
  • The Grand Canyon bears evidence of having been created in a universal flood, only a few thousand years ago.
  • There have been quite a few “Early Man” finds that later were revealed to be hoaxes, simply monkeys of one kind or another, actual human remains, or even in one case a pig.
  • These same hoaxes or errors often remain in textbooks long after being disproved

Coming at long last to the end of this presentation of Atheism and Evolution.

Most certainly I did not say all there is to say. And I may perhaps revisit this topic in perhaps 18 months or so, and add to it. The focus of my ministry is not a creationist ministry – I leave the advanced arguments to people much better suited, such as Lawrence Smart, or Vance Ferrell, or Kent Hovind.

At least I don’t believe that’s the main focus of this ministry. That’s up to the Lord. But I’ve got many other things to deal with, as I’ve said before.

The long bullet list of points I’ve raised (you know, the one you just skipped over) shows I’ve done some major damage to the theories of evolution (I say theories, because Cosmology is one form of evolution, and I started with that because, well, as I pointed out, one of the forums of atheism was Star Trek, and they advocated the approach I used – and it’s also the approach Sagan used).

Now I know, the ardent believer in SCIENCE will stedfastly hold to their beliefs. It’s just like the Jehovah’s Witnesses I’ve dealt with – many will read what I write and move on, still believing in that which I’ve exposed.

No problem. Good luck. Be aware you may have to explain someday why you did not believe.

And yes! I’m coming right out and saying, I’m trying to get you converted. I think I made that clear right from the start!

For those of you who are ready to accept the fact that Science has misled and indeed even lied to you (uh… peppered moths, anyone?), I’m here to help.

Because the Lord perished on the cross for you, dying and taking your punishment on Himself. All you have to do is accept it. Free of charge.

What’s it going to hurt you?

Absolutely free. Nothing you need to do to earn your salvation. I think that’s what bothers people the most. If I gave you a million things you had to do, like Buddhism does, it seems to satisfy the human nature.

But that’s man’s way, not God’s.

You owe it to yourself to investigate Christianity with an honest, open mind, and a willingness to accept it if it turns out to be correct. Josh McDowell will be the first to tell you, he set out to DISPROVE it. He ended up believing. He’s not the only one.

Remember, you have the rest of your life to make a choice. How long is that? I don’t know. Neither do you.

I’d choose right now.