Monday, September 28, 2009

Synthetic Life

"A common argument used by theists to support their belief in God, is that life is so complicated it can only have been made by God. Often this is accompanied with the assertion that there is a "vital force" that separates living things from non-living things, and that God is the source of this "vital force"

This article starts off with a HUGE claim, the claim that scientists have created life. The funny thing is, however; that right afterwards they spend some time making the argument that a virus is considered a life form. Even today this is still debated, so it's debatable whether or not, assuming they did in fact create a virus, it's considered a life form. Some arguments for why it couldn't be a life form:

  • They do not grow

  • They do not respond to stimuli

  • They do not consume anything for energy

  • They are not made up of cells

  • They are not a member of any kingdom

  • They do not have a metabolism

  • They cannot replicated their genetic information without a host

(Found on and

Another thing that is somewhat ironic about this, is that they believe by creating it they have show evidence for evolution. To cite Rhoblogy:

intelligent agents working in a controlled (by intelligent agents) lab that was designed by intelligent agents and constructed by intelligent agents intelligently applied this and that chemical and environmental factor, intelligent learned from previous failures and intelligently tweaked this or that. The result? And intelligently-designed virus!


Now, there's one more point I'd like to make. There have been people who have created amino acids and organic compounds from inorganic substances, but there is a major issue. There is absolutely no reason to believe our atmosphere ever contained no oxygen, and when oxygen is present organic compounds cannot be formed. For example, the Miller-Urey experiment used what they thought was the atmosphere of early earth, but just took away oxygen in order to produce organic compounds. They even knew that there is no evidence for the earth having no oxygen originally, but believed we must simply not know how yet because evolution has already been proven correct. (Icons of Evolution)

Rhoblogy's take:

Monday, September 21, 2009

Top 10 Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian posted a top ten list of the ways to tell whether or not you are a fundamentalist Christian. Let's take a look:

10: You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

I don't feel outraged when someone denies the existence of God; it just makes me a little sad for them. I try to make people understand, not use the naive approach described here. That's the purpose of apologetics, to give reasons for our faith.

9: You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that we evolved from other life forms, but have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

I don't feel dehumanized with the Bible because it talks about how much God loves us and that he cares for us enough to send His Son to die for us, how could that dehumanize you?

8: You laugh at polytheists, but believe in a Triune God.

Shows what they know about the meaning of Triune. Also, I don't laugh at polytheists, I don't laugh at any other religion.

7: Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about when God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in the "Exodus" and ordered the extermination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including men, women, and trees!

For one, he killed firstborns, not all the babies, more research issues. Here's a link explaining these instances: I do have issues with atrocities attributed to Allah, and I also realize humanity has made mistakes in the name of God, but is by no means a reason to say Christianity is wrong, it means people mess up.

6: You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

The Holy Spirit did not have sexual relations with Mary likes it's implied here, God implanted a fetus. Again, I do not laugh at Hindus, somebody has a very ugly belief of who Christians are. The rest makes sense if you know the Bible, he was killed as a perfect sacrifice because he did not sin, and was willing to do this. He came back to life by conquering death, and ultimately sin. And he ascended because he had beaten death, he need not die again.

5: You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

They weren't Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents, they were witnesses to God's glory, and were definitely NOT guessing. I haven't spent my life doing this, but it'd be a good way to spend it. Atheists call evolution a fact, and if that were the case there would be no "loopholes". There are way too many for it to be a fact.

4: You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."

For one I'm non-denominational, so I don't believe all rival sects will go to Hell. It's the most tolerant and loving because our God is infinitely Holy, and cannot be in the presence of imperfect beings. Jesus gave us the opportunity to become perfect, and if you don't accept it there's nothing more to be done. It's not our fault of how it is, and almost all other religions have the basic idea of a Hell as well.

3: While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

Very few people use speaking in tongues as proof for Christianity, first of all. Modern science does not contradict the Bible. The Bible deals with a God outside of time, matter, and space (aka Supernatural). Science deals with the observed natural. Science's boundaries are outside of the Bible. Furthermore, history affirms the events that happened in the Bible.

2: You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

For one the success rate is hardly that low, it doesn't always occur immediately. Also, God always has the final say, if you had a 2 year old child asking for a gun you wouldn't give it to him. We have extremely limited knowledge compared to the Almighty. Remember James 4:3 as well "When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures".

1: "You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian."

For one this hardly has to do with Fundamentalism, but I'll play along. I find it personally sad that there are agnostics and atheists that have more knowledge than Christians do, and it really shouldn't be that way, but I don't believe that's the case with me and the staff.

A friend's view:

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Jesus Never Lied

Another article on is a somewhat short one saying that Jesus lied about the power of prayer. It says if you look at these verses without adding anything to them, then they are blatant lies out of the mouth of Jesus. Unfortunately what those who read this usually don't realize, is that the thing they don't want added is the historical context, the "key" to understanding the meaning of the verse. The following are their examples:

1) Matthew 21:21-22. Taken out of context, of course it will sounds like a lie. In the cultural context moving a mountain is a common metaphor for doing something that is seemingly impossible, not literally moving one. Also, we submit our faith in prayer to God, so it is always He who has the final say. has a full article on this.

2) Matthew 7:7-8. Same idea

3) Matthew 18: 19-20. Same basic idea again, but slightly different. Of course it doesn't mean Jesus is literally with them, it's through Jesus we have the ability to come together and pray.

4) Mark 11:24-25. Exact same words as #1

5) Luke 11:9-13. Exact same words as #2

6) John 14:13-14. Same idea

7) John 15:7. Same idea

8) John 15:16. Same idea

9) John 16: 23-24. Same idea

Every single one of these is Jesus saying the EXACT, SAME, THING! This is actually one big example, shows a little about research again, doesn't it? I posted a link to a site which explains Jesus words in full, without unfairly adding to them.
Also, a great link from a friend more experienced in this than I am:

Monday, September 14, 2009

"God Is Impossible"--The Conclusion of the Matter

Thus ends Chad Docterman's argument for God's impossibility. He says no rational and free-thinking individual could deny it. I think you, the reader, are a perfectly rational person that should now be able to see the many holes in Mr. Docterman's argument. If you do some serious research, you find out things Mr. Docterman didn't want to.

Of course, he has to end the article with a direct insult at the Christian community. He ends with saying that he chooses reality, when in fact he chooses a life without any obligation to any being greater than he is, and ultimately chooses death over life. As for my house and millions worldwide, we choose to serve the One And Only Yahweh, who was, is, and is to come, and is the only one who can redeem the entire human race from their sins. If you can believe in him, repent of your sins, and dedicate your life to Him you can experience the infinite joy those millions have, and live forever with God Almighty.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16

Friday, September 11, 2009

"God Is Impossible" Part 14--The Omniscient is Suprised says here that the omniscient Christian God has emotions such as anger and frustration that we only feel when there is something we cannot change. He also is suprised by new information, and there should be none if God is truly omniscient. has a small article about this. God had emotions and we experience them because we are made in His image. God's emotions, however; are different from ours in the sense that they are perfect, and do not need the same stimuli we do to provoke them. "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are my ways are not your ways, says the Lord" Isaiah 55:8. Even when anger is mentioned, it is always right behind the word righteous when referring to God.

Thursday, September 10, 2009

"God Is Impossible" Part 13--The Omniscient Changes The Future's entire argument here is two sentences: A God who knows the future is powerless to change it. An omniscient, all-powerful, free-willed God is impossible.

How exactly does this make sense? Omniscient knows He knows all, that means He can see every possible outcome of a given situation based on his interference, so he can make a free-willed decision on what he'd like best, and the limits on what he can do with it are non-existent because of his omnipotence. Again Mr. Docterman's claims are unfounded.

"God Is Impossible" Part 12--Unfulfilled prophecy

Evilbible now states that there are prophecies in the Bible that haven't been fulfilled. This is a unfounded claim simply because many refer to end times, which obviously are still yet to come.

The only example they give is saying Isaiah 7's prophecy is not fulfilled in Matthew 1 like the author portrayed it. They say Jesus was never called Immanuel during his lifetime, and the two kingdoms it refers to don't make sense, so they couldn't be referring to Jesus.

Actually, Isaiah himself had a second son named Maher-shalal-Hashbaz. He came by a prophetess who Isaiah had married, but at the time he gave this prophecy to Ahaz she was unmarried and a virgin. The two kingdoms refer to Israel and Syria, two countries near Judah that Ahaz was afraid of. Part of the prophecy said that at the time his son could tell good from evil they would have new rulers, and that came true. Hence, they called the child Immanuel (God Is With Us).

This appears to merely show that it referred to Isaiah's son and not Jesus, but look up Isaiah 8:18. He states that his children are signs and wonders of the Lord almighty, so Maher-shalal-Hashbaz was a sign of Jesus yet to come in the same fashion!

Also, there is a youtube video that talks about the many prophecies that have been fulfilled throughout history. Check it out:

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

"God Is Impossible" Part 11--Contradictory History

This section of the article "God Is Impossible" makes the claim that the Bible contradicts itself on matters of history. They make general claims to hundreds of instances, none of which I've previously come across.

The only example they give is saying that the Bible doesn't say whether Timnah was a concubine or a son. Timna is mentioned as a son and a concubine, but that is because Timna is the concubine of Esau's son Eliphaz. Genesis 36 talks about her and even gives her full clan information.

Also, Esau's wives seem to have a contradiction between Genesis 26-28 and 36, but this is due to a word issue. It would take a long time to explain so go to

The last example they gave was that it contradicts itself whether Jesus lineage is through Solomon or Nathan. It's actually Solomon, it seems to go both ways because Matthew traces it back through Mary and Luke traces it back through Joseph. Again, fails to show evidence of having done research. Joseph's lineage is through Nathan, but remember Joseph was not Jesus's biological father. Mary's line goes through David.

Monday, September 7, 2009

"God Is Impossible" Part 10--Contradictory Justice

This and the next are probably the hardest ones to debunk thoroughly because they make very vague accusations.  They say that God's justice changes throughout the Bible without any examples but 2, both of which are easy to answer.

First of all, they mention David's punishment for taking a census.  1 Chronicles 1:17 actually tells us the "He" is SATAN, not God.  This is easily found with a more literal reading in the original text.  Also, a census is generally to take account of something you own, and Israel was by no means David's, at that point it was a theocracy.

The only other one they mentioned was Jesus fixing God's imperfect creation.  I've already shown creation was perfect until we messed it up, so that point has already been answered.

God has an unchangeable nature, so his sense of Justice never has and never will contradict itself.  There are websites answering Bible "contradictions" people struggle with.  Try:,, or

Thursday, September 3, 2009

"God Is Impossible" Part 9--Perfection's Imperfect Revelation

This part is one of the least researched parts I've encountered, the thought that Mr. Docterman has put into it is extremely small. He says that if God was truly all-knowing He would have just put the knowledge of Him into our own brains himself instead of composing an "indecipherable amalgam of books which is the Bible as a means for avoiding the hell which he has prepared for us. The perfect God has decided to reveal his wishes in this imperfect work, written in the imperfect language of imperfect man, translated, copied, interpreted, voted on, and related by imperfect man," to use its own words.

For one thing, it figures that it would call the Bible an indecipherable amalgam. The thing is, we all bring our own predetermined beliefs to it whenever we read the Bible, which leads to some wrongful interpretations. The Bible was written more than 1000 years ago, so it just makes sense for you to have to look back at the phrases and symbols that would have made perfect sense to people then. The historical context is of utmost importance when you are studying scripture, a point with Chad Docterman obviously overlooked.

While it is true that it takes more than one lifetime to fully understand the entire Bible, understanding every bit of it isn't necessary. I cringe a little at using the word necessary because every Christian should attempt to spend time in the Word every day, but what I'm saying is that the reason God hasn't revealed His nature to us individually and completely is because He wants to see people seeking after Him, and one of the ways Christians do that is through reading the Bible to find out more about their faith. Not every sentence in necessary to salvation, but it does give more insight into the true nature of our Heavenly Father.

"God Is Impossible" Part 8--Belief More Important than Action

This is one every Christian should feel strongly about. The Bible says that anyone who hasn't accepted Jesus into their hearts will go to Hell, and it's true. We are all sinners and actions, no matter how good, can't atone for what we've done. There are people in remote parts of the world who may never hear the Gospel, but that's what the Great Commission is for: "Go and make disciples of ALL NATIONS." Christians are charged to go out and spread the Word of Jesus to everyone who hasn't heard it and try to make them understand why they need forgiveness. says that this means God is judging people on their beliefs rather than their actions. The fact is, if you've truly accepted Christ as your savior that IS an action. Satan BELIEVES in God, but that doesn't mean he's going to heaven does it? Also, if you are truly a Christian that should bring about a radical enough transformation that actions go along with it, without actions you are not a true believer. This doesn't work both ways though, just because you do actions doesn't mean you are a believer.

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

"God Is Impossible" Part 7--Infinite Punishment for Finite Sins

This is probably one of the weakest arguments makes regarding God's existence. It is an extremely obvious misconception and shows how little research the article writer actually did before they wrote.

They say God cannot exist because He is perfectly just (again limiting with the word perfect) and yet he punishes people eternally for finite sins that happened during their mortal lifespan. Furthermore, God couldn't be fairly punishing them because he created them imperfectly.

Quite a few obvious issues, see them? For one, Hell is a place without God's presence which is why it causes such suffering. God's presence is always around us here on earth, and is able to be around sinful creation because of the possiblility of redemption. When you die there is no more possibility for redemption, so you must go to a place without God's presence because an entity that is perfectly holy cannot be in the presence of imperfection. If you simply accept Jesus your sins become covered and you acquire ultimate and eternal joy through Jesus Christ. Not too mention I've already shown He didn't create us imperfectly.