The Atheists are Wrong - Part 9 - BONUS!

Get the Paperback version HERE!

See Part 8 HERE!

Part 9

BONUS!

}{

Expanded Material – 2nd Edition

In this “bonus” chapter we’d like to tackle in greater depth the two topics most important in this debate. Those are “evolution” and logic. Richard Dawkins, famed zoologist turned evolutionary biologist, has made it quite clear in many interviews that he would not be an atheist if not for the theory of evolution. It is the engine which drove him to jettison his faith completely. And so it is this engine that is the ultimate factor in the outcome of the theist/atheist debate for, if biological evolution is true as presented by atheists then the Bible, by default, is not. With respect to Mt Everest, and it does deserve our respect, there are two extremes of personalities who have climbed it. Hundreds of people have died trying to summit the tallest mountain on earth. That is one extreme. But believe it or not there are people who have reached the top of the highest point on the planet without even an oxygen tank. That's the other extreme.


We know how the others died - poor preparation, weather, and freak accidents, whatever. And we know how those who make it are able to breathe so high above sea level where the air is so thin that no helicopter could ever find enough of it to grab onto if someone needed saving. How do they do it without dying? They "evolve". It's true. Whenever a human being climbs Everest the person must willingly participate in the process of biological adaptation thousands of feet above sea level in real time. At a certain altitude if a person climbs any higher their lungs will fill with fluid and the person will die. So they have to sit at this altitude, in the cold, on the side of the tallest mountain on earth, for five weeks! That's correct! Five long weeks of "evolving". This is one method. Another is doing the climb in several stages by climbing and descending; each time climbing a little higher and descending a little less. "Climb high - sleep low" is a common phrase among Everest enthusiasts. Whatever the method the end result is the same. The person will have to achieve acclimation by adaptation. The goal is to double the number of red blood cells in the body. This enables the body to carry twice the oxygen load. So when the height is reached where the oxygen level is half the normal levels (above 20,000 feet) the red blood cell count doubles to compensate. This is a rapid adaptation observed in humans. This is scientific evolution - or - change over time. We observe this happening in most biological systems. Darwin observed this on the Galapagos Islands over a hundred years ago with finches and others. The birds "evolved" different sized beaks for different tasks yet they all remained finches and they all remained in the same genus or biblical “kind” if you will.

Bible believing Christians have no issue with adaptation. In fact it is predicted in the biblical record that creatures would be able to adapt and reproduce "according to their kind". The problem here comes when so-called "scientists" make grandiose claims that any biological system can "evolve" beyond the gametic barriers of its kind. This is not science at all but religious dogma designed to take God out of the equation. It is the height of pride and arrogance. The word "science" comes from the Latin word "scientia" which literally means "knowledge". The creative work of God is responsible for the templates. The "kinds" have always been intact and changes through adaptation have been scientifically proven to happen rapidly without deep time myths and without ever invoking "microbe-to-microbiologist" religious nonsense.


The people who climb Everest, like the finches observed by Darwin, always remain confined to their kind (genus). There is no proof to suggest otherwise. All evidence is easily interpreted in this biblical light and fits easily within the biblical worldview. There has been exactly no scientific breakthrough ever which can be attributed to atheistic evolution which cannot be more greatly attributed to biblical worldview adaptation. Real science is happily performed without invoking any atheism-based ideology whatsoever. There are many scientists who actively and publically refute deep-time biological evolution. Jonathan Sarfati of CMI is
dedicated to this cause; real scientists doing real science. A link to their resource material is available in the resource section at the end of this book.

POOR HITCH


Get the Paperback version HERE!
See Part 8 HERE!


Christopher Hitchens died December 15, 2011. He was a staunch anti-theist and made considerable living writing books denouncing the belief in transcendental realities like God. He also worked the debate circuit challenging great thinkers like William Lane Craig and Frank Turek. The irony here comes in the way Hitchens died - Esophageal cancer - or cancer of the throat. He was literally rendered speechless. Interesting, is it not, that a man dedicated to speaking out against the existence of God would get a disease which disables one's ability to speak? No? Right - it's probably just a giant coincidence. Christopher was a foul human being according to many who interacted with him. He resisted the classy route of cordial debate and instead mocked and ridiculed his opponents no matter how dedicated the theist was in remaining respectful. More often than not Hitchens wouldn't even look his opponent in the eye; disrespect Al Sharpton was quick to rebuke Hitchens for in their debate.

Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise
in his own conceit.
Proverbs 26:5

"When he eulogized famous religious figures, Christopher Hitchens contemptuously brushed aside conventional sensibilities, unleashing his Oxford-bred, wickedly witty disdain on the departed, often, it seemed, before the body had become cold" wrote WND's Art Moore. Of the Moral Majority founder he wrote in 2007:

"The discovery of the carcass of Jerry Falwell on the
floor of an obscure office in Virginia has almost zero
significance, except perhaps for two categories of the
species labeled 'credulous idiot.'" He closed the piece
lamenting it's "a shame that there is no hell for Falwell
to go to." Among his tamer descriptions of Mother
Theresa, whose order said it would pray for Hitchens'
soul after his death Thursday, was: "A fanatic, a
fundamentalist and a fraud."

Hitchens was a leading figure and one of the "Four Horsemen" of the New Atheist movement. He resembled that pudgy little kid that everyone thought was "cute" no matter the caustic nonsense that spews out of the hole in their head. The article in WND by Moore expressed a fondness for "Hitch" by many of the people who debated him but it was merely a fondness for a joke - a silly man who knew big words and resembled a child so ugly only a mother could love it - proverbially speaking of course.

"I do it because I think the essential argument that underlies all other arguments is the one between belief in the supernatural and repudiation of that," he said. "It cuts across all the left-right, libertarian-statist arguments" - Christopher Hitchens

Yet the anecdotal evidence provided by millions of witnesses that the supernatural realm exists completely confounded him. He was like that crazy uncle who would shop at Wal-Mart for hours and then tell everyone there's no such thing as Wal-Mart - borrowing from God by using logic and then saying God doesn't exist - further exhibiting the atheist mental disorder conundrum. Hitchens personified the wasted life - a life lived as a fool. To live as one who embraces the philosophy of naturalism is to live a wasted life void of any originally intended and designed significance. It is the most closed-minded philosophy imaginable. Such a description is the legacy of Christopher Hitchens - a wasted life - a life spent as one fighting the ultimate reality. And just as all those who lived between the time period Jesus walked the earth and now, Christopher Hitchens died in 2011ad - the year of our Lord.

BY SPECIAL REQUEST


Get the Paperback version HERE!
See Part 8 HERE!


In previous edits we touched on the transcendental nature of logic. As previously mentioned, this is not an argument for the existence of God (T.A.G.) but rather a refutation of the philosophy of naturalism; the modern atheistic position that nature is all that exists and there is nothing else. People have requested that we give more detail on our position which we believe, as Christopher Hitchens so accurately pointed out, is the most essential argument facing humanity today, as it always has been, and always will be.

Logic as a whole renders the atheist worldview indefensible since logic is, by virtue of the existential reality of logic, supernatural. And since logic, which is just one of many transcendental realities, destroys the atheist worldview (or at least renders is silly at best) we really ought to give it a high level of attention – and so we shall.

Aristotle is widely believed to have discovered logic. What we today call Aristotelian logic, Aristotle himself would have labeled "analytics". It is important to understand the difference between the invention of something and the discovery of same. Invention implies that something did not previously exist and yet now does because someone brought it into existence. Whether a mechanical item or an idea, nothing can be called an invention if it previously existed. For instance, Isaac Newton discovered gravity, or rather, was the first to publish intelligent writings on it. Newton obviously did not invent gravity. It was always there.

The same could be said for antibiotics and Sir Alexander Fleming. In 1999, Time magazine named Fleming one of the 100 Most Important People of the 20th Century for his discovery of penicillin, and stated:

“It was a discovery that would change the course of history. The active ingredient in that mold, which Fleming named penicillin, turned out to be an infection fighting agent of enormous potency. When it was finally recognized for what it was, the most efficacious lifesaving drug in the world, penicillin would alter forever the treatment of bacterial infections. By the middle of the century, Fleming's discovery had spawned a huge pharmaceutical industry, churning out synthetic penicillin that would conquer some of mankind's most ancient scourges, including syphilis, gangrene and tuberculosis”.

Did you notice the word “discovery” in that article quote from Time magazine? The difference between discovery and invention is a conundrum for modern atheism. Logic was discovered. If it was invented then who invented it? Aristotle? Of course not! Obviously logic pre-existed him and everyone before him. Think about it, unless someone invented logic then logic has always existed. And if logic always existed then it is transcendental. Here is another truth to consider. Logic is universally applicable. It makes no distinction between human and chimp. Both require it; whether a dung beetle or an astronaut – all require the use of logic. It is the a priori we all must abide by in order to function in nature and yet it has no natural origin. It is transcendental. It is supernatural.

The existence of logic doesn’t require the atheist to believe it is transcendental. It exists as a tool sent from almighty God and is required by all no matter what their beliefs are about it. The same is true about the concept of “good”. Let’s talk about it.

Morality has a very subjective quality about it. Cannibals, for instance, may feel morally obligated to eat the flesh of another human being. Atheist apologist Dan Barker has gone to great lengths to defend his position that rape could in fact be a morally acceptable act given the right set of circumstances. He uses the example of an alien life form coming to earth and demanding that a girl be raped in order to save the planet from being wiped out. In this case, Barker argues, raping one girl to save the lives of seven billion people would be morally acceptable. But would it be “good”? Enter the theater of your mind and imagine the scenario: aliens have come to earth. They've travelled from light years away to destroy us and the only thing stopping them, according to atheist apologist Dan Barker, is the rape of a young girl. This, according to Barker, would be morally acceptable but, while imagining this event happening in your mind, could you say it was good? Sure, seven billion people have been saved but a rape is happening. Is it good?


The scenario given by Barker, aliens coming to earth and forcing the rape of a girl in order to save humanity, is not good. The subjective dynamics of morality may render it acceptable in the minds of some – a necessary evil in light of the alternatives - but it is not good. In fact there would be some, and perhaps rightfully so, who would say that humanity could not afford to stoop to the level of raping another person in order to satisfy the perverted curiosities of aliens. Some might even say “let humanity die off. Better to go out with dignity than to save ourselves by violating another”. This perspective, however, is impossible for the atheist who embraces the philosophy of naturalism; the belief that there are no supernatural realities. So atheism once again shows why it is on the wrong side of morality and why atheism ruins everything. Yet this example exhibits the transcendental nature of good. Even though many people may see this event as amoral and others see it as moral it should be universally agreed that the events envisioned by the atheist are not good. That’s because good is a universal a priori used to judge the natural world. It, like logic, is transcendental. It applies to all of nature yet has no natural origin. Of course there will always be someone out there, who might actually believe that raping someone is good, and perhaps Dan Barker is one of those people, but rape is something which is universally condemned and considered not good by most civilized people. As societies around the world progress toward equity and civility certain acceptable norms begin to surface. Superstitions and irrational beliefs are jettisoned and replaced with ideologies and philosophies which come in line with commonly held statutes and rejected behaviors. Where do these commonalities come from? If all peoples can universally condemn certain behaviors, from where does the standard for good judgment emanate? One might argue that it is simply agreed upon by people and needs no source at all. Yet good is not subjective like morality. Like logic, good does not require consensus. It exists no matter what people think about it. Going with the crowd and making decisions by popular vote may work in politics but it is actually a logical fallacy. Good and logic exist no matter what the consensus is on any topic. In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it; which alleges: "If many believe so, it is so." Many people have been right in spite of the common opinion at the time. Scientists used to teach that the earth was flat. That was the common belief. Now we know better. Aristotle used to teach that organisms came about through spontaneous generation believing that flies grew out of the juices and heat produced in dying carcasses. Now we know better. Consensus with respect to any topic, whether science or philosophy, is irrelevant to the truth which exists even if no one on earth has discovered it. Even when nobody agrees with it, good and logic are there – waiting for the rest of the world to catch up.

Proverbs 1:20 - 22 ¶Wisdom crieth without; she uttereth
her voice in the streets: She crieth in the chief place of
concourse, in the openings of the gates: in the city she
uttereth her words, saying, How long, ye simple ones,
will ye love simplicity? And the scorners delight in their
scorning, and fools hate knowledge?

The Bible speaks of wisdom hundreds of times. In the King James Version it is mentioned 234 times exactly. In some cases, like the one we just quoted, wisdom is referred to as a personality. She cries out to people, making herself available for knowledge and the shedding of simplicity. The implication here is that this wisdom is what we today call logic. Science is even mentioned in that scripture. Did you see it? The last word: “knowledge”.

The word “science” comes from the Latin word “scientia” which literally means “knowledge”. People who refuse to embrace wisdom, in this case logic, have no idea what real science is. Therefore, by using transcendental logic, or wisdom, we can truly understand science, or knowledge. And may scientists do exactly that. They access this wisdom and perform great scientific feats. The great tragedy is when they give all the credit to nature and not to God who gives these tools, logic and good, to humanity. Like the child opening gifts under the Christmas tree and neglecting to thank or even acknowledge the giver, atheists use these gifts, logic and good, and then ignore the giver of the gift or, in some cases, slap the giver in the face. To the atheist we say: it’s time to grow up.

This is the second edition of “The Atheists are wrong” – first expansion. This book will evolve over time. As new information comes to the light we will include it here and republish it as an ongoing series; a library of thought and truth. God bless you.


Get the Paperback version HERE!
See Part 8 HERE!

============================================================


In The Magic Man in the Sky, Carl Gallups has given us an exciting insight into the many unanswered questions of evolution theory and, based on biblical truths – both prophecies and promises, the possibilities of other worlds and realities denied by evolutionists. With his open and frank approach, supported by extensive research and information from learned professionals in their respective fields, Carl challenges believers and unbelievers to take a serious look at the subjects discussed in this book. Ultimately, Carl invites every reader to seriously consider the gravity and consequences of accepting or rejecting the truth presented. In this hour of all-but-universal darkness, a bright ray of hope and confidence shines forth from the truths of this book. In a time when lives are marked by a growing hunger for spiritual realities, Carl Gallups reveals the truth that real science and Holy Scripture are inseparably linked to verify that behind all creation there is an intelligent designer who created all that exists.