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?
One of the biggest proofs of the Bible is of course the flood.
There’s marks all over the world of the universal flood.
Now because we’ve got a lot of false teachers and wolves in Christianity masquerading as “pastors” and “scholars”, I’ve got do define “Universal”. I do recall hearing of one teacher who spoke of a universal flood – which means one thing to Bible believing Christians and apparently something else to false teachers – and was asked to define it. His definition was, “It flooded in Noah’s hometown, and flooded his universe.”
Okay, if you have to have a mental “fill in the blank” legal clause, you’re lying.
When I say universal flood, I mean, the entire earth covered in water.
“wait! There’s not that much water on the planet!”
Who says? Have you measured the water BENEATH the oceans? There’s literally water beneath the surface of the earth, erupting in the form of geysers, springs, brooks, lakes, ponds, and even under the sea, there’s geyser activity, water bubbling up from beneath the earth’s crust. There’s even some areas of the world where due to various gases that are solidified, the sudden venting of waters from beneath the earth’s crust in that location is devastating – any ship on the surface of the ocean at one of those isolated, rare spots when that venting occurs runs a good risk of finding itself under water in a matter of seconds, due to surface displacement. Fortunately, these spots are rare, and not a lot of shipping goes over them. There’s only one or two ships that are thought to have sunk from one of these ventings.
Anyway, we’ve got a LOT of water on the surface of the earth. A lot of water is also condensed into ice at the ice caps, in the forms of icebergs, and in the forms of glaciers. During the time of Noah, these may not have been frozen. There is after all, a lot of discussion since Henry Morris advocated a Greenhouse model on the earth prior to the flood.
“well, there’s not enough water on the earth to cover Everest.”
You mean, Everest NOW. Everest was not always as tall as it was. Indeed, Everest was slightly smaller by a few feet when Sir Edmund Hilary and Tenzing Norgay climbed Everest, I am told. For the skeptics who are going to demand I cite my source, look, I’m sure you know the address of Google.com. Or Yahoo. Or Duck Duck Go, or Bing or whatever.
The earth would have gone through massive stresses in a sudden, Universal flood. The thought is that it was a nice gentle rain that lasted 40 days. Henry Morris’s model depicts a sudden catastrophic event like a meter impact, that shattered the water canopy around the earth (I think it was ice, myself) and impacted the Yucatan Peninsula. This caused massive shock waves, and caused the skin of the earth to split in fissures, releasing massive amounts of water all at once. The falling ice or water canopy ended up as heavy rain drops. The Hebrew word for the flood is “Mevushal”, or boiling. That does correspond to massive releases of energy as water falls from the skies, and water exploding from the earth’s surface.
The shockwaves from the impact, plus the impact of billions of gallons of water released under pressure probably formed the mountains. Was there enough water to cover Everest?Absolutely – as Everest may have been only fifty feet high at the time of the Flood.
If all the ice on the world melted (something global warming enthusiasts frequently fret over), the oceans would get… pretty deep, they say. So if you believe that, and add in subterranean waters released violently, how deep do you think that water could be???
The Flood was drastic. Do the models (not just on a computer – actually simulate it with a mock up built to scale) and see – what kind of stresses does the sudden release of billions of gallons of water onto the landscape create?
If Everest was never covered in water, then how do you account for the fossilized shellfish on it’s peak?
It’s funny that geologists can look at various spots in the world and identify a massive flood, but then turn around and scoff when the Bible presents the same information.
It has been pointed out that civilizations around the world depict a common teaching of a universal flood, a family getting onto a boat, and surviving, and all the peoples of the world being descended from that family.