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?
16 Redeeming the time, because the days are evil. 17 Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is. 18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; 19 Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord; 20 Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; Ephesians 5:16-20 (KJV)
This is the time. Seriously. I am becoming more and more convinced that the Rapture of the Christians is nearing. Many of you have blogs… this is the time to get serious about this.
Contend earnestly for the faith. Witness to the lost. Try to reach those who call themselves Christians, whose entire claim for a hope in Heaven but who actually claim nothing but a wet forehead as a baby. Try to reach those who think they are a god, and can speak things into existence. Try to reach those who believe that the Watchtower Society is God’s faithful servant on this earth. Try to reach those who believe that Joseph Smith was visited by an Angel who used to be a man named Moroni. Try to reach those who believe they have to keep the laws of Moses to be saved. Try to reach those who think “the Sunday Sabbath is the number of the beast”. Try to reach those who think Hinduism is the way. Who think their Buddhist faith will get them reborn if they redeem enough karma points. Try to reach those who think the vibration of cosmic crystals will allow them to ascend into a higher order of sentient being. Try to reach those who think, “My whole family is Baptist, so I guess I go to heaven too…”
You’re going to get arguments. You’re going to offend many. You’re going to risk a lot of heartache just to finally reach one person – but that one person will avoid Hell forever, and that’s the point.
And you may be planting a seed for when (after we disappear) they may wake up and realize, “This was real, and I just missed it.”
But if you do nothing… they all are lost. Condemned.
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.
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…
237 to the zero power is… uhhhh…
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?
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.”
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.
Because so many skeptics and Atheists rely on this.
Well, first, there’s a number of dating methods, Potassium argon, RCD, Uranium Decay,and strontium decay.
The major flaw is the assumption of a closed system. In other words, the assumption is that “The way it is now is the way it always has been.” If we see a decay over 24 hours that is measurable, the theory is that we can do some simple math and determine how far back it goes.
In a word, Solar flares. Meteorites. Comets. Nuclear testing. Nuclear materials.
If you were to gather enough nuclear material and pile it together, it heats itself up. Kind of like pushing coals together, they begin glowing hotter.
There’s a term for this, it’s called a “pile”. Oh, WOW! Science is so cool!
A nuclear pile increases nuclear activity. Particles begin moving faster.
your readings are now slightly off. The decay rate is not going to be the same.
Okay, let’s look at the strontium decay levels. Pretty consistent, all the way to the creation of the universe, right?
“Hydrogen bomb.” Those things dumped a huge burst of strontium particles all over the world. I’m kind of a nuke nerd, I love watching films of the explosions, and scholarly explanations of precursor waves, ground effect detonations, etc. Those smoke trails in the air show the impact of the shockwaves as the nuke explodes. WHOOOOMP!!! And the sound goes on for over a minute, as it’s one loooooong continuous release of nuclear particles. Fascinating.
Then the soil is ripped off the ground by the pull-back. Watch a nuke blast, you’ll see at one point that the explosion reaches a certain point, and suddenly things start getting sucked into the blast. Including topsoil. which is flung miles high.
And after six hours, begins to drift slowly down, to the ground… it’s called “fallout.” At some point, I’ll bore all of you with an explanation of the rule of 7’s.
It just messed up all your readings. A brick made in the 1930’s could have a grossly distorted nuclear decay rate. It could show up as being negative radiation decay (read: The future, which of course couldn’t be measured, unlike the silly error in cheap 1950’s sci-fi movies), or the rapid succession of half-lives from artificially created elements could greatly distort the readings.
In addition, the particles cast into the air when a comet or meteor hits the ground is going to distort readings. Hey, potassium and argon being showered upon a rock layer isn’t going to affect the decay rate? That was proved wrong during the Enrico Fermi experiments with fission at the University of Chicago in the 1930’s. We used that information to build a number of devices that can split the atom, remember?
In addition, radiologists announced that they discovered decay rates aren’t constant, and that RCD readings would have to be redone, and recalibrated. It meant if the decay rate isn’t constant… then EVERY estimate of age is grossly inaccurate.
That announcement was made in the 1970’s. What’s the result? We should see 60 million year old fossils being revised to later dates, such as, I don’t know, 6,000 years.
But Science is married to Darwinism and the Big Bang, and so…
They revised the dates to 65 million years. You went the wrong way! If the decay is not constant, then ALL YOUR DATES ARE CALLED INTO QUESTION.
Rocks in Aukland are dated at 146,000 years old… but they were formed by a volcanic eruption 200 years ago. Oops. That’s quite a mistake.
Rocks from the Hualalai eruption, also 2 centuries ago, revealed dates of 160 million years ago to 3 billion years. Sure, I can see that, not a big mistake, guessing 3 billion years for two century old rocks. Hey, I wonder how last year’s Sakurajima eruption, or better yet, Sinabung… how old their rocks are? Let’s see, they’re a year old, so, I’m guessing 15,000,000 years old – that’s the order of magnitude of the error in the Hualalai’s rock dating!
Hey, what’s 15 million years between friends? I mean, this is about truth, right?