Believe it or not -- Part 2

We left off with a pretty 'blanket statement' that atheists absolutely hate (there's enough relativism in that sentence to choke a horse!).

Here's what I said a lot of them and liberal thinking (sorry, 'progressives') think these days;

"Truth is Relative"

But before I even get to this, let me rope off a rabbit trial some of you might likely be headed down already. The thought that I am calling all liberals bad.

Liberal is not bad.

I consider myself a liberal thinker, but not a liberal when it comes to an 'anything goes mentality.' By liberal, I mean 'free thinking,' by liberal, the group I am referring to most often means, as I said, 'anything goes.' I'm talking about a careful, considerate approach to life (<-- insert sarcasm here) that can often be boiled down to, 'if it feels good, do it!' But these kinds of philosophers seldom extrapolate that line of thinking out to its natural, disastrous ends.

For example, a pedophile has a certain definition of what falls into the category of "if it feels good, do it," that I am absolutely positive most small children would not agree to.

Rabbit Trail Alert! Sorry to have to do this--especially to the average, savvy reader, but there are, unfortunately some out there that read for little sound bites they can twist and bend for their counterargument so it becomes necessary at times to use a piece of chalk and draw a picture for them. No, I'm not calling progressives and atheists pedophiles. I am merely exposing a serious flaw when some of their reasoning is played out all the way.

Got it? Good.

So, free thinking = good

anything goes = bad

Now, believe it or not, if you want the no boundaries lifestyle bad enough, it's eventually going to lead to the absurd notion that truth is relative every time.

Why?

Because all you have to do when you want to do something that isn't convenient or...hmm, what's that word I'm looking for, um...Oh! 'legal,' is to claim that the restriction (law, boundary) in question is true for YOU, but not for ME.

The argument is really nothing more than a way to live without boundaries. It's not built on truth or facts of any kind. How could it be? This philosophy says there are no absolutes. But a closer look reveals that the subscribers of this bankrupt way of thinking seldom live by it themselves.

In the area of absolutes, let's just deal with their least favorite, "moral absolutes." Why is this by far their least favorite? Because it interferes the most with their ,'anything goes' philosophy. They are far less likely to push the 'no absolutes' argument in areas of verifiable science, because, as I said, it's verifiable. In other words, all you have to do is open your eyes to see that there are scientific truths and absolutes. This is why, when the statement "there are no absolutes" is made, it is almost always in reference to moral absolutes.

It's a strange thing, really. I mean, I can't see the forces behind 'gravity,' but I can observe its undeniable effects and, therefore accept it as an absolute truth. However, it's existence does not hinge on whether or not I accept it. Therefore, we ought to accept certain undeniable moral truths based on their 'undeniable affects' even though morality is not something I can pick up and observe. The disastrous affects of denying absolute moral truth can most certainly be verifiably observed.

But that really would be a rabbit trail, so let me stick to the issue at hand--moral absolutes.

Here's what I want to do.

I'd like to hear from a few of my favorite atheist on this. Feel free to comment below on this whole idea of moral relativism.

- Does it exist (moral absolutes)?
- Is it the same for everyone? Amsolute?
- Is it different for everyone? Relative?
- If moral absolutes do exist, what are they?
- If they do not exist, what are the standards we live by?
- If they do not exist, but there are undeniable standards by which we all live, why listen to them?
- And anything else you'd like to add on this topic


I really want to address the questions you all raise rather then chasing down every path this discussion potentially leads down. So, feel free to comment over the next few days and I will comment back.

Believe it or not Part 1

This weekend I asked the congregation how many used AOL?

Just by a show of hands, anyone here using America Online?

In three of the services there was no one! Not a single person raised their hand! This would be odd in a church of several hundred, but over 2,000!? Now, grant it, there were a dozen here and there (we have seven weekend services -- there's bound to be a few) but for the most part it was "American online" instead of, 'America.'

But I digress.

I was trying to see if anyone else ever saw those weekly "guess what really happened?" in Hollywood quizzes. Not much chance there was going to be a real familiarity there when so few even have AOL anymore, so I explained what it was.

It's a series of about 10 questions. Some are true and some are false. You have to guess which is which. And here's the rub, it's not that easy because the made up stuff isn't any more whacked out than what really happens in these people's lives!

For example, "Brittney Spears was taken to the psych ward...true or false?

That one is true

But then they might throw something like this in,

Brittney Spears caught wandering the streets mutterring Justin Timberlake's name over and over again...true or false?

Actually, that's kind of easy. It's true.

NO! I'm kidding. It's false. But I could easily see her doing this. It's not really far fetched given some of her recent behavior.

Which leads me to the point of this blog.

We seem to be morphing into an incredibly lazy and gullible culture when it comes to seeking truth. Heck, we can't even agree on what truth is anymore.

Many universities actually teach that truth is relative and that there is no absolute truth.

How dumb is this?

Is this higher learning?

I'll address this more in part 2

Couldn't resist. The Door was left WIDE OPEN

Celtic,

The way you phrase your comment is a whole lot easier to stomach than the screaming liar approach.

So I will attempt to clarify why I keep coming back to chance. Just for you.

I am not banging the same gavel for any other reason than to say that IMO "natural selection" walks like a duck, quacks like a duck..."

but it most certainly isn't a duck, b/c a duck has a brain. I'm just saying that exchanging natural selection for chance does not solve the problem IMHO. It still feels an awful lot like a disorderly, chaotic, random, directionless nothing. IMO Maybe it helps to add IMO. I do have a tendency (like our mutual friend, Barefoot) to assume my opinion is the only one that matters. Not one of my strong suits. :(

In going back over the "exchanges" Barefoot and I have had (where I talk and he calls me a liar) <-- ok, ok, occasionally he types a paragraph without the theatrics. I admit, I have a tendency to stay on points that were not adequately answered rather than moving onto the next rabbit trail. And, in regard to the whole chance thing I've seen a lot of smoke and a few mirrors but no answer. And maybe that's b/c we all know there is none. You either choose 'natural selection' or you choose ID.

But I can't help but see a lot of assuming going on. Especially in not drawing a distinction between macro and micro evolution (stay with me, this IS relevant).

I have a tendency to over simplify things, by zooming out too far, but you all have failed to show where I am wrong in doing so.

For example, to me there seems to be an awful lot of blurring of the lines b/n macro and micro evolution. Darwinists, for example, love to point to "fun with bacteria." "Look what bacteria does when antibodies are introduced. They adapt. See...evolution!" <-- yes, Larry, this is just one example. One at a time please.

But this kind of stuff isn't even a little bit hard to explain without evolution. When bacteria survive a bout with antibodies--survive and even multiply, the surviving group may be resistant to that antibiotic. But they are resistant b/c the parent bacteria possessed the genetic capacity to resist, or a rare biochemical mutation somehow helped it survive. I say 'rare' b/c mutations are almost always harmful, not helpful. Since the sensitive bacteria die, the surviving bacteria multiply and now dominate.

Presto, Chango! Evolution.

I say, 'fair enough.'

Surprised?

You say, "game over" we finally got the preacher boy!

Hold on to your fiery pants a minute longer. B/c here's the rub.

WHAT KIND OF EVOLUTION?

Larry fails to see how critical this is. It has to do with why I keep mentioning chance. It has to do with why I keep bringing up probability and improbability, and it has to do with why I sometimes wonder why someone who claims to be debating with one half of his brain behind his back wouldn't employ the other half and get in the game.

And make no mistake about the relevance of this line of attack because, outside of the philosophical presuppositions I've been exposing, defining "type of evolution" is perhaps the greatest point of confusion in the creation/evolution controversy.

This is where Darwinian errors and false claims (i.e. ‘lies’) begin to multiply like bacteria if left unchecked by those who actually still believe that observation plays an important role in science. And here’s what observation tells us, the surviving bacteria always stay bacteria! They do not evolve into another type of organism. That would be macroevolution. And here it comes…ready?

Really, really, ready?

Natural selection has never been observed to create new types. And if Larry attempts to pull up a fictitious study from the underground gnomes of middle earth ‘proving' me wrong. It will be as much a fantasy as are the underground gnomes themselves. I understand evolutionists are ‘working on it.’ I just happen to believe they will keep right on working until the cows come home.

Ok, back to the point. Macro evolution is clearly NOT seen in bacterial studies, however, macro evolution is exactly what Darwinists claim from the data. They say these observable micro changes can be extrapolated to prove that unobservable macro evolution has occurred. In other words they often make no distinction between micro and macro, and thus use the evidence for micro to prove macro.

By failing to make this distinction, evolutionists can dupe the general public (as Larry often does by attempting to keep things on the highest shelf with flowery, albeit often incoherent babbling. No, your vocabulary is not outside my range of understanding. It's just outside my range of relevance. Most often it simply isn't necessary to making your point. In fact it hurts your arguments rather than helping).

Back to our previously scheduled programing...

Evolutionists are masters at defining evolution broad enough so that evidence in one situation might be counted as evidence in another. Unfortunately for them the general public is beginning to catch on to this tactic, thanks largely to Berkeley law professor Phillip Johnson.

Johnson first exposed this Darwinian sleight of hand with his ground breaking book, Darwin on Trial (And you might want to try reading it b/f you default to name calling [i.e., ‘everyone knows Johnson is a dolt!’] tactics. In his book he points out that, “None of the ‘proofs’ [for natural selection] provides any persuasive reason for believing that natural selection can produce new species, new organs, or other major changes, or even minor changes that are permanent. Biologist Jonathan Wells agrees when he writes, “Biochemical mutations cannot explain the large scale changes in organisms that we see in the history of life.”

At the risk of going on and on, I’ll stop here and give you all some homework:

Why can’t natural selection do the job? Why do I refer to it as another name for chance? Here are five reasons. Chase them down and you will see that I am right.

1. Genetic Limitations
2. Cyclical change
3. Irreducible complexity
4. Nonviability of (adequate) transitional forms
5. Molecular isolation

“Hey Rob! You didn’t include the fossil record in there. Why not? Because you’re afraid of the fossil record aren’t you? You can’t handle the fossil record!”

Take it easy, Nicholson. It’s not that I can’t handle it. It’s that it’s so pathetic even the author of your Bible (The Origin of Species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life) cringed every time he was reminded of it. Kind of a long title for a book, but then again, I can see why that second half is almost never shown in modern titles. Pretty big racist, wasn’t he?

Anyway, he said (about adequate transitional forms), and I quote, “why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.”

My hats off to him for at least a couple of reasons.

1. At least he’s honest and straight forward about the obvious flaws of the theory rather than trying to hide them, and,
2. He calls his theory just that, a theory.

In his defense, he genuinely believed that, in time, further fossil discoveries would prove his theory, but the exact opposite has occurred. Time has proven him wrong. Contrary to what you may hear from the general media (you mean they lie?! Tell me it isn’t so!!!), the fossil record has turned out to be a complete embarrassment for Darwinists. As I said many posts or comments ago, if Darwinism were true than thousands, if not millions (I’ll be careful not to exaggerate with ‘trillions’ – Larry’s never heard of using that in arguments and often miscategorizes it as, big surprise, “lying”) of transitional fossils would have turned up by now. Instead, according to the late Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould (an evolutionist – I prefer using your own camp’s words against you. Notice I almost never use biblical support because...

1. You don’t respect it, and

2. I don’t even need it.

Your own people usually get around to hanging themselves if you just give them enough rope. Oops, I hope I didn’t just slip into the fallacy of too much rope-ism. Oh well, what’s done is done.) “most species do not exhibit directional change during their tenure on earth.” And, “…a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed.”

Well, Stephen, it’s a good thing you’re dead b/c you’ll surely be drummed out of the militant atheist club now. And, had you survived (via morphing into a sea turtle or something [they have a longer life span you know.] ) you almost certainly would have lost all the benefits that go along with membership such as;

1. living without a purpose
2. resigning yourself to believing you are nothing more than an evolved piece of highly sophisticated cellular plasma
3. And believing there is no God yet living as though you are Him

Ok Gents (and I use that term…never mind), I must be going. I’m going to refrain from responding for a few days. I have some catching up to do with my real job. Besides, even if you refuse to acknowledge it, you need [and will undoubtedly take] the opportunity to rethink these things.

Pretty Impressed with Himself

A fool takes no pleasure in understanding,
but only in expressing his opinion.
Proverbs 18:2

Larry loves to hear himself talk--no valid argument could ever be made denying that. But alas, the art of listening is dead in Bumsville. I can't get Larry to answer two or three simple questions and I've about exhausted my patience in wading through the temper tantrum responses while I wait. So, I'll give God some room to work here. If he can't get through to the guy's heart, no amount of reasoning will do the trick.

Anyway, he definitely personifies Proverbs 18:2. That's the bad news. And he'll never know it either because he mocks God's Word too much to ever really give it an honest go. It's that darn listening thing again

And there's the rub. I genuinely wish the best for him and the best would be for him to bend the knee to God through Jesus Christ His Son and quit trying to be God. The job's not up for grabs. He's interviewing with himself. And I guess I've got a soft spot for atheists because of the handful of previous ones at Southbrook Church. They were just as stubborn until their lives hit the skids. Enough banging your head at the bottom of the barrel and eventually just about anyone will look up.

Barefoot's just not there yet. And the sad thing is, he's running in the wrong direction.

There is a way that seems right to a man,
but in the end it leads to death.
Proverbs 14:12

One day I know that he will stand before God and give anything for even one more minute on earth--anything to have a second chance. Of course, at that time, he'll realize his chances were many.

And I tried to get him to see how silly it is to believe all the incredible wonder and intricacy and diversity of life is impossible without God but I underestimated what Paul said in Romans 1:17-32, "

"The righteous will live by faith."

HOWEVER...(added)

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

Each time I read this I cringe for those who spend the their lives mocking God. The Lord is patient but they interpret this as Him being unable to do anything, unwilling to, or simply nonexistent.

That's when I remember that in addition to a couple thousand regular attenders there will be several hundred more this weekend who have finally come to the end of their humanistic rope. I need to be ready to share the love of Christ with them.

Oh, I'll check in with Larry from time to time--especially at first to see if I keep my perfect record in predicting exactly what he's going to say next. Which, BTW, at this point should be a song and dance about frightening me off with half his cerebrum tied up while the other half circled around back for a rear attack.

AAaaaggghhh...scarey

I'll pray for you, Larry...

You'll laugh...

But I'll keep right on praying.

Give Chance a Chance!

10,000,000 perfect hands of bridge

Is this even possible? Sounds pretty impressive, I'll give him that.

Maybe we ought to just give chance a chance? I mean, chance is not the enemy is it?

Can't we all just get along?

Really, can't all the incredible specified complexity of life actually be explained by chance? Or 'natural selection' (another name for chance)? I love that one, by the way. It's like when Amway people stopped saying Amway and started saying they were talking about an "International marketing opportunity."

Um, you mean, "Amway"?

Well, yeah.

Ok.

Anyway, the answer is the same one I gave you for time...NO.

It's true, that Atheists (no surprise) and Theists (a little surprise) alike have calculated the probability that life could arise by chance from non-living chemicals. Both groups have done the math, it's just that one (hint: the one my friend, Larry is in) can't quite bring themselves to the inevitable conclusion.

For example, Michael Behe has said (if you don't know who he is than you probably shouldn't be in this battle of wits in the first place) that the probability of getting one protein molecule (which has about 100 amino acids) by chance would be the same as a blindfolded man finding one marked grain of sand in the Sahara Desert 3 times in a row.

Oh, and one protein molecule is not life. Just thought I'd throw that in.

To get life you would need to get about 200 of those protein molecules together!

Again, that probability is virtually zero.

But I believe it actually IS zero.

Why? Because "chance" is not a cause any more than natural selection is a "cause."

Chance is a word we use to describe mathematical possibilities. It has no power. It has no mind. Chance is nothing. It's what rocks dream about.

Let me end this rather simple discussion with something that is often brought up in relation to 'chance.' -- the flipping of a coin.

If someone flips a coin, what is the 'chance' it will come up heads? Fifty percent we say. Well, yes, but what causes it to come up heads?

Is it 'chance?'

No, the primary cause is an intelligent being who decided to flip the coin and apply so much force in doing so. Secondary causes such as the wind and gravity also impact the result. Heck, if we knew all those variables it might even be possible to calculate how the toss would turn out beforehand. But since we do not know those variables--now watch this--we use the word, "chance" to cover our ignorance.

In writing this response to Barefoot I am in essence calling his bluff. Unlike most, I believe we should not simply allow atheists to cover their ignorance with the word, "chance" or its only slightly more impressive cousin, "natural selection."

And all this is hardly even worth discussing from my point of view because it is, in essence, getting in the car for a ride before the engine has been invented.

Seriously, because we have been discussing probability and relative probability of life occurring and evolving into what we see today without solving the number one problem atheists and macro evolutionists face--HOW DO WE GET LIFE FROM NON LIVING CHEMICALS?!

It's the slam dunk, touchdown, game over problem for them and they know it. No fallacy argument here--just the plain simple truth. No one has ever done it and I believe (apart from God) they never will. That's why I was simply floored that there were actually commenters on Barefoot's blog talking about the latest quack who says he's "days away" from the most incredible breakthrough in the history of mankind!

They've been throwing this out there a few times a year for forever. Please, don't give me, Bozo the South Korean, human cloning clown, give me life from nothing or shut up about it. Support from the mystery scientist in the mystery back room with the mystery breakthrough that never happens, is gibberish!

Readers: Don't you see the magnitude of this problem for the macro daddy-mac evolutionist? If they don't have an explanation for the first life, then what's the point of speaking about new life forms or probability of life in Captain Kirk's parallel universe? The process of macro evolution, if it's possible at all, can't even begin unless there's preexisting life.

Game over.

Still in the game

Barefoot comes back with another one...

Barefoot wrote:

A life-friendly universe is not necessarily highly improbable. Rob mentions the "100-plus constants (that have to be there for life on planet earth)", but there are only 26 dimensionless parameterized constants in the Standard Model of physics (precision and factual accuracy do not seem to be Rob's strong suits), and many of them "describe the properties of the unstable strange, charmed, bottom and top quarks and mu and tau leptons which seem to play little part in the universe or the structure of matter." [Wikipedia]

Here is my response to his latest condescension:

Hello again, Barefoot.

I see another jab so I will send you to the source should you desire to check it out for yourself.

You said: "A life-friendly universe is not necessarily highly improbable. Rob mentions the "100-plus constants (that have to be there for life on planet earth)", but there are only 26 dimensionless parameterized constants in the Standard Model of physics (precision and factual accuracy do not seem to be Rob's strong suits), and many of them "describe the properties of the unstable strange, charmed, bottom and top quarks and mu and tau leptons which seem to play little part in the universe or the structure of matter." [Wikipedia]

If you get the chance, pick up Richard Dawkins book, The Blind Watchmaker and see pages 17-18 as well as 116 for detailed reference to the over 100 plus constraints."

Also, noted Astrophysicist, Hugh Ross has calculated the probability that these and other constraints--122 in all--would exist today for any planet in the universe by chance (i.e. without divine design).

Assuming there are 10 to the power of 22 (not many font options in here) planets in the universe (1 with 22 zeros following it), his answer is sobering even for a non-drinker (or "drinking liberally" -- another blogger questioning all of this). It's one chance in 10 to the power of 138.

Or, 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000! Give or take a zero.

To put this in perspective, by comparison, there are only 10 to the power of 70 atoms in the entire universe. In effect, there is a zero chance that any planet in the universe would have the life supporting conditions we have, unless there is an intelligent
designer behind it all.

Now, Larry (and fellow commentors) I really have no problem with your need to condescend. In a way I understand why you do it. But it's one thing to call me ignorant and uneducated but quite another to say that about, for instance, Nobel Laureate Arno Penzias, co-discoverer of the radiation afterglow, who said the following: "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly-improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, 'supernatural plan.'"

Is he just an ignorant, spoiled child ranting on about that of which he knows nothing?

If so, I have an endless list of equally moronic scholars I can give you. The question I have, however, is what difference will it make?"

Do as I say, not as I do

In case you haven't been privy to this, I've been going round and round with everyone's favorite atheist, The Barefoot Bum. He has been getting increasingly hostile to my responses, however, and I'm not sure how long it will last. I mentioned to him in a comment that I see that a lot with liberals and anti God people.

Every time I turn around they're leaving the kitchen due to heat issues. Here is his last comment:

The Barefoot Bum said...

At this point let me share with you all (the readers) a curious reaction I witness time and time again when more than adequately qualified individuals break from the (your) party line...

This is called the fallacy of poisoning the well.

Yet again you abuse my hospitality and the platform (by pointing out error?) I have offered you for your remarks with intellectual dishonesty. (most people refer to them as facts)

This is your last warning. If you want to discuss the substantive issues, and you're capable of showing the respect in my venue that I've shown in yours (I would have been kicked out long ago if I actually mirrored the so-called 'respect' he shows) you're welcome to do so.

However, if you continue to act like a spoiled, illiterate child (i.e. like him), I see no reason to continue to publish your remarks.

Do I make myself clear (yes dad)?

This would be funny if it weren't so ridiculous. First of all, we are talking about blogs with some of these folks that have to be screened with a fine toothed comb before I can even post all of what they have to say. Profanity and vulgarity are commonplace. One sided accusations raise no red flags. There's 'group think galore' going on with 90 percent of the comments. Nevertheless, I overlook all of this because I really do want to talk with these people and some are quite nice.

It's fun to talk to them, but frustrating to try and have an even debate when I'm handed Roberts Rules of Order and then the other side's book only contains one sentence, "anything goes."

Alas, here is my response to his comment. I'm publishing it here because I doubt he has the staying power to stick with this and I wanted you all to know I do...

My comment back on his blog:

Wow, ok, thought I had to be wrong in what it looked like but I wasn't.

Once again, Barefoot, you can dish it out as they say...your rules simply do not apply to you

Your last comment is back on track, but in your previous ones I have been called a liar, a dishonest intellectual, spoiled, illiterate child -- did I miss anything?

What I did not get, however, was an answer.

When you name call and accuse me of acting a certain way in my comments, don't forget that my "comments" are right there for everyone to see and read. And, when they do not seem presented any different than your own -- people are going to wonder what in the world you're talking about with all the paranoia. You risk losing credibility and appearing as though you just don't have an answer.

I have thoroughly enjoyed the debate thus far other than this bizarre, selective overreactiing

Do you not see why I said what I did about the defensiveness?

As for your staying on topic request, I've posted 2 lengthy answers to your comments on time and chance. And sent all my readers there (of the ones who want to continue this discussion) The one about time is already up at, www.pastorrobsrants.blogspot.com and the one about chance will be added tomorrow.

I'm sure people would love to hear your responses, Larry, but, to be honest with you 100 percent of the emails and comment feedback from my blog (as far as attitude goes) has been about the love and patience shown you despite the condescending approach you may not even be aware you take.

Again, I'd love to hear your responses but I'm not going to play this childish game with you.

This is your last warning.

Just kidding...

I'll give you 2 more cause I'm trying to be nice.

Oh, one more thing (Isn't there always one more thing?) I'm going to go ahead and publish this comment on my blog as well, just in case you decide to take your ball and play somewhere else. I wouldn't want people getting the wrong idea that I ran for the hills for no reason...

that would be intellectually dishonest.

I'm bad! Bad pastor!

Let's just give it Time.

Evolutionists dismiss (all too quickly, I think) that intelligence was necessary for the first life by suggesting that more time would allow natural laws to do their thing. You've all heard it. It's the old, 'just give it another billion years or so, and we'll get life.'

But is that even remotely plausible?

Remember the humongous Buddha the Taliban blew up in Afghanistan? It was hewn out of three of four stories of hard rock right out of the side of the mountain. Sort of the Mount Rushmore of Buddhism.

Well, if, as my friend, Larry correctly asserts (but selectively employs), science is built on observation and repetition, then let us suppose we repeat an experiment where we allow natural laws to work on rock for the next ten years. Will we ever get the mountainous Buddha back?

Not that I miss him.

Some of you might be thinking, 'maybe. Maybe if we let natural laws work for billions and billions of years. It might happen then.'

Nope. Chances are zero. Here's why...

Nature disorders. It does not organize things. This is a well known and accepted (across the spectrum form atheistic scientists to Bible believing Creationists) aspect of the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. More time makes things worse for my friend, The Barefoot Bum (aka, Larry) not better.

Why?

A friend of mine explained this in a way even a 3rd grader could grasp.

Suppose you throw red, white and blue confetti out of an airplane at 1,000 feet. What are the chances you will end up with the American Flag on your front lawn?

V-e-r-y low.

Why?

Because natural law will mix up or randomize the confetti.

You say, "allow more time."

Ok, take the plane up to 10,000 feet to give natural laws more time to work on the confetti. Does this improve the probability that the American Flag will form on your front lawn?

No, more time actually makes the flag less likely because natural laws have longer to do what they do--disorder and randomize.

At this point macro evolutionists and atheistic evolutionists will say that the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't apply continuously to living systems. After all, living things do grow and get more ordered (thought I'd bring that up before you laid it out there, Larry. It saves me another post tearing it down). Yes, they do, however, they still lose energy in the process which is the main premise of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The energy doesn't proceed at 100 percent efficiency, so this law also applies to living things.

However, that is not even the point for this context. We're not talking about what something can do once it is alive. We are talking about getting that living thing in the first place.

How did life arise from non-living chemicals, without intelligent intervention, when those same non-living chemicals are susceptible to the 2nd law?

They have no answer.

A respose to, "Evolution and Chance"

Before you read this post, go to, The barefoot Bum's website, here and read his response to an earlier post of mine.

Pastor Rob here to enlighten you all once again.

BTW, I have a new blog just for such festooning and philosophizing. It's at www.pastorrobsrants.blogspot.com

This way I can keep the two groups straight.

Well, I've got a few minutes here, but once again, you'll find some of your arguments in "post form" over at the other blog, then you can see my responses and so forth...

First of all, I'll address real questions, but where anonymous and slut (gotta love that name) offer nothing but gibberish and name calling, I'll leave them to the school yard of 3rd grade.

So let me hit just one area here that Larry attempted to brush aside a little too quickly. So quick, in fact, I sensed something wrong there.

At this point, before reading further, some of you might want to throw in a few expletives about those @#$#$%$@*& Christians!

Feel better?

Let's continue then.

Larry says: "It's important to understand that before we even begin to discuss the scientific theories that fall under the rubric of "evolution" that the design hypothesis has immense, probably fatal flaws, flaws that were apparent in the 18th century."

He then goes on to talk about how there are a number of design flaws that would indicate the designer was, well, less then stellar at His task.

Forgetting for a moment all the perfectly good things in nature we humans screw up, I want to make sure we bring the point back in focus. The point was that intricate design points to a designer -- not that "only perfect design points to a designer." If that were the criteria then we'd have to assume all American made cars are a result of evolution over millions of years since they all seem to have a million and one flaws. But that isn't the question. The question is, at what point is there too much intricacy for chance or natural selection and even a trillion years to be a legitimate possibility?'

For some of your very well known (former) atheistic colleagues, that point has already been reached.

Astronomer Fred Hoyle had his atheism shaken by the Anthropic Principle and the complexity he saw in life.

Hoyle concluded, and I quote, "a commonsense interpretation of the facts suggest that a super intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature."

While Hoyle was vague about who this super intellect is, he recognized that the fine tuning of the universe requires intelligence.

Time out.

At this point let me share with you all (the readers) a curious reaction I witness time and time again when more than adequately qualified individuals break from the (your) party line.

They immediately get labeled as discredited, loony, secret agents for the religious right (or something to that affect). It just amazes me that your own heroes of old need only step over the line (to the light side) one time and they are immediately thrown to the wolves.

It's a little bit like what I see people doing to Hilary Clinton now that Obama has the lead. Yesterday she was the democratic poster child. Today many seem ready to throw her body in the volcano and sacrifice her to the atheistic, um, well, throw her in the volcano.

I don't want to go down that rabbit trail too much other than to say that emotions seem to play an enormously disproportionate role here.

Just my observation.

Back to the festooning.

Other atheists admit design but then claim there is no designer. They say it all happened by chance (Larry prefers the term, 'natural selection' i.e. 'chance') But how can you seriously suggest this when there is virtually zero probability that all the 100-plus constants (that have to be there for life on planet earth) would be there absence intelligence?

Larry seemed to lean on the numbers angle. So, I assume you are talking about the multiple universe theory here. Am I right?

Or at least something like it.

That theory would assert that there are an infinite number of universes out there and we just happen to live in the one with all the right conditions.

I've heard this many times, but find it to be an incredible leap of faith on par with Steve Martin in his movie, "Leap of Faith."

Essentially, atheists holding to this are saying "given an infinite number of universes, every set of conditions will occur, including the life supporting conditions of our universe.

Larry makes it clear that he stands with those who adhere to this when he says, "It is probably true that, to some extent, the habitability of the Earth is a matter of chance. Solar systems do not evolve as do life forms and are not subject to natural selection. However, there are about 200 billion stars in just our own galaxy, and there are about 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe, for a total of 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars. Just by comparison, if you dealt that many random hands of bridge, you would receive about 10,000,000,000 perfect hands, with 10 of them dealt in perfect order. It's extremely likely that some planet is ideally situated for the development of life, and of course it is precisely on that planet where life would occur."

"Extremely likely"?

"10,000,000,000 perfect hands"?

I address the "likelihood" of this on my blog..,

Let me finish this Guinness Book of World Records length comment first.

There are many problems with the multiple universe explanation. First and foremost is that there is absolutely not even one shred of proof for it. The evidence shows the exact opposite. It's another 'theory' Larry attempts to set forth in a factual manner.

It's perfectly fine for him to believe it and accept it on faith, but ludicrous to set it forth based on it being "extremely likely." For something to be 'extremely likely" there ought to be at least a modicum of evidence for it.

I'll continue. What the 'evidence' does show is that all of finite reality came into existence with the 'Big Bang. Finite reality is exactly what we call the universe. If other 'finite reality' exists, they are beyond our scientific ability to detect. No one has ever observed any evidences that any such universes exist. Larry takes it on faith based on 10,000,000 perfect hands of bridge (<-- by the way, I checked into that a little more thoroughly and, let's just say, you might want to run those numbers again).

In short, the multiple universe is nothing more than a metaphysical concoction-- a fairytale built on blind faith--as detached from reality as Stephen Hawking's "imaginary time."

For more, go to, www.pastorrobsrants.blogspot.com

A home for festooning

Wow, I'm getting a lot of buzz these days on my www.robsingleton.net site. So I thought I would create a forum just for me to rant.

Why another blog?

Because part of the purpose of robsingleton.net is to keep the folks at Southbrook up to speed, and I see multiple purposes beginning to spring up. Heck, I might have to see multiple blogs spring up as well. So...

Welcome to Rob's Rants!

Feel free to theorize and rant and spew (within reason) here, and I will do my best to get back with you in a reasonable amount of time.

If you meant to reach www.robsingleton.net, obviously you've made a hideous error and it might just cost you dearly!

Or, you can just click here and head on over to that site.