Hover over Romans 1:20-22 for proof of God's existence, and over Matthew 5:27-28 for Judgment Day’s perfect standard. Then hover over John 3:16-18 for what God did, and over Acts 17:30-31 for what to do.

Saturday, January 31, 2009

The World’s Most Amazing Atheist

Years ago I emailed the world’s most amazing atheist. No, it wasn’t Richard Dawkins. Let me give you a clue as to his identity. He was an ordained minister for 19 years, and during that time he even wrote songs about Jesus, from which he still receives royalties today.

I upset him to a point where he said that if I ever made contact with him again, he would have my email account shut down. He was really mad.

I can’t tell you his name because he is lawsuit-crazy, but I can tell you what I said to him. All I wrote was, "Judas lasted three and a half years. Yet you managed to fake it for 19 years! Amazing."

Most professing atheists complain about the Church being full of hypocrites. There are millions of hypocrites sitting right in the middle of God’s people. They are pretenders, whose lives don’t match what they profess. Some remain within the Church, while others move on to other things (some to atheism).

But that's the missing link with false converts (hypocrites). They don't know the Lord because they are strangers to true repentance. They hold onto their sins and think that they are Christians, when they are not. They are fakes.

Jesus called the ones who stay, "goats" among the sheep, and said that they will be sorted out on Judgment Day (see Matthew 7:21-27).

My lawsuit-happy friend played the hypocrite for an incredible 19 years. No doubt at the time he thought he knew that Lord, just like Judas. But Mr. Iscariot had no idea who Jesus of Nazareth was, evidenced in the fact that he also saw Jesus as simply a means of making money. No doubt today he’s still being paid for what he did.

Some would say that this atheist’s bark is worse than his bite. I don’t think so. He is more than just a barker. He is an angry and bitter man who hates the God he once professed to love.

Amazing, and yet tragic. This poor man obviously never understood the cross.

Friday, January 30, 2009

When and why did a female evolve with every species throughout all creation?

Predicted answers:

"Ray, Ray. You know nothing at all about science."

"You show your ignorance by asking such a stupid question."

"You idiot. You don’t even know what 'species' means?"

"You have had experts explain the principles of evolution before, but you won’t listen because you are arrogant."

"We don’t know as yet, but scientists will find out one day."

"You are a liar and know it."

"You are using questions like this to deceive all your cult followers, and make money for yourself."

"Please provide proof for the above question."

"Ray. It's very simple. Neurophysiology has discovered through pan genesis that the genomes and deoxyribonucleics evocatively support the Lamarckian selection and the heterochronic theory suggests further pan genesis, completely explaining human hormonal structures and neurological anomalies."

This is the best explanation I could find on line:

"I don't know enough about the evolution to tell you where exactly species started sexually reproducing but I can tell you that even yeast (a very low order eukaryotic single celled organism) can mate and mix their genes."

Thursday, January 29, 2009

Trillions of Trillions of Years Ago

"Questions Theists Can't Answer: So Ray, what was God doing for those the trillion years before he created the universe? and the trillions of trillions of years before that? and the googol years before that, and the googolplex years before that?"

Time is a dimension God created, to which He subjected man. With God there is no time. He dwells in "eternity," a dimension of which we have no comprehension. You will go into eternity when you "pass on" from the earth.

Think of how the average man five hundred years ago would have mocked the thought of television, radio, GPS, or even instant communication via the wireless telephone. There are dimensions in creation we haven’t even begun to discover. So let’s be careful when we mock things of which we have no understanding.

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

The Atheist and the First Dog

Imagine being there when the first dog evolved. Let's say it's the African hunting dog (Lycaon pictus), the wild canid of Africa. There was a big bang, and millions of years later an animal with a tail and four legs, a liver, heart, kidneys, lungs, blood, ears and eyes evolved (through natural speciation) into the first dog. Fortunately for him, his eyes had evolved to maturity after millions of years of blindness, so that he could see the first female dog that had evolved standing by him. It was actually very fortunate, because if the female dog hadn't evolved also and been at the right place at the right time, with the right parts and the willingness to mate, he would have been a dead dog. He needed a female to keep the species alive.

When some thinking person on an atheist blog said, "It is my understanding that the evolution of sex remains something of an unexplained mystery," there was a quick reply: "Nope. For example, the selective advantage has recently become clear: it serves to keep transposable elements from completely taking over the genome."

Let me paraphrase what our "I haven't a clue, so I will blind him with science" atheist just said: "The evolution of sex is not an unexplained mystery at all. For example the natural selecting choice for the best that evolution makes has recently become clear. It serves to keep the movable material from completely taking over the genome (a genome is a full set of chromosomes; all the inheritable traits of an organism). If you are not sure what chromosomes are, they are a threadlike linear strand of DNA and associated proteins in the nucleus of eukaryotic cells that carries the genes and functions in the transmission of hereditary information. If you are not sure what eukaryotic cells are, they comprise all of the life kingdoms except monera. Eukaryotic cells also contain many internal membrane-bound structures called organelles. These organelles such as the mitochondrion or chloroplast serve to perform metabolic functions and energy conversion.

"So that's how you can know for sure that the female dog evolved at just the right time, at the right location, at just the right age, with the exact reproducing female parts to mate and keep the species alive. Keep repeating to yourself that evolution makes sense, and that it's extremely scientific. I know that it is intellectually beyond you, but we have all the answers. Trust me."

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Charles Darwin Believed Man Evolved from Monkeys

"Ray, you have been told, over and over again, that no one believes humans came from monkeys. No one. Humans and monkeys share a common ancestor, which is stunningly obvious to anyone who has ever seen both a human and a monkey. Stop it." P.F.

"Whether the bishop likes it or not, Turkana Boy is a distant relation of his. The bishop is descended from the apes and these fossils tell how he evolved." Richard Leakey, paleoanthropologist (italics added).

"We admit that we are like apes, but we seldom realize that we are apes." Richard Dawkins

Pic. caption: "WHAT ARE PRIMATES? Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Primates are members of the taxonomic order Primate, a subgroup of mammals (class Mammalia). There are approximately 350 species of primate.

"What are the four categories of primates? 1. Prosimians, 2. New World Monkeys, 3. Old World Monkeys, 4. Apes." www.greatapetrust.org/primates/index.php

"Still we are monkeys, the sort of monkey which is called an ape. The common ancestor of apes and humans (humans are also perhaps best called apes I'd say)would have come in the group we call monkeys, and indeed old world monkeys. So we can say we are monkeys just as we are primates and mammals. If you look at the classification in the Wikipedia article on monkeys you will see that humans are actually classed there as apes, who are old world monkeys." (Evolution believer)

Where would he get such a thought? From Charles Darwin (1871):

"But a naturalist would undoubtedly have ranked as an ape or a monkey, an ancient form which possesses many characters common to the Catarhine and Platyrhine monkeys, other characters in an intermediate condition, and some few, perhaps, distinct from those now found in either group. And as man from a genealogical point of view belongs to the Catarhine or Old World stock, we must conclude, however much the conclusion may revolt our pride, that our early progenitors would have been properly designated. But we must not fall into the error of supposing that the early progenitors of the whole Simian stock, including man, was identical with, or even closely resembled, any existing ape or monkey."

Interpretation: "Even though it's a revolting thought, our early ancestors were monkeys. But don't fall into the error of thinking that they looked like contemporary apes or monkeys."

Smile Test:

A little girl asked her mother, "How did the human race appear?"

The mother answered, "God made Adam and Eve; they had children; and so was all mankind made."

Two days later the girl asked her father the same question. The father answered, "Many years ago there were monkeys from which the human race evolved."

The confused girl returned to her mother and said, "Mom, how is it possible that you told me the human race was created by God, and Dad said they developed from monkeys?"

The mother answered, "Well, Dear, it is very simple. I told you about my side of the family, and your father told you about his!"

Monday, January 26, 2009

Atheists--I would love to know your thoughts on this:

Islam video clip

Atheism: the Intellectual Embarrassment.

"Just because a few atheists believe that everything came from nothing doesn't mean that all atheists believe that." Robert Madewell

It’s not a matter of not believing it. It’s a matter of definition. If you say of your Ford Expedition that you have no belief that there was a maker, then you think that nothing made it. It just happened. You have defined yourself as having that mentality.

So if you call yourself an atheist, you are saying that you have no belief in a God--a Creator. Creation just happened. Everything you see--all the different breeds of dog (both male and female), all the different breeds of cat (both male and female), all the different fish in the ocean (both male and female), giraffes, elephants, cattle, sheep, horses, birds, flowers, trees, the sun, the moon, the stars, the four seasons, night and day, the marvels of the human body--the eye with its 137,000,000 light sensitive cells (we have been made well Robert) . . . all these marvels of creation were made by nothing. They all just happened. That’s atheism at its core. What an intellectual embarrassment.

Then the professing atheist has the unbelievable gall to consider himself intelligent, and he thinks that science backs up his delusion. Think of the ludicrous language an atheist is forced to use. He can’t say that creation was "created" and he has to avoid saying that everything has been "made." He will even say that he has no beliefs . . . that he is "without belief." His problem is that he hasn’t thought his beliefs through. If he has any intellectual self-respect he will move from the "nothing created everything" belief, to the "something did it but I just don’t know what it was." And is doing so he distances himself from the embarrassing label of "atheist."

Sunday, January 25, 2009

The Atheist's Amazing Imagination

History has shown that man has often used the name of God for his own agenda--from religious wars, to Adolph Hitler (who had "God with us" engraved on the belt buckles of Nazi Germany). The zealous evolutionist evokes the name of science in the same way, and as far as he is concerned, anyone who disagrees with his beliefs disagrees with science and is therefore ignorant.

Evolutionary "scientists" would excel as Disney imagineers. Take for example the gifted folks at the very popular "The Future is Wild" ministry. These secular prophets predict the future. They give long-term evolutionary horoscopes for the earth--what evolution may do in 100 million years time, all in the name of science.

They do with the future what believers in evolution do with the past. They imagine. Then they draw pictures of what they believe may happen, and sell them to kids and those with the imagination of a child. They say, "Every animal and plant in The Future is Wild could really exist. Our science team devised each one as a viable, living organism . . . It’s not surprising that our scientists talk about them as if they really existed!"

The same goes for those who imagine what things were like up to 14 billion years into the past, and talk about it as if they weren’t really imagining. All in the name of science. Imagine that.

Pic. This is an imaginary "Squibbon" (100 million years plus): "Squibbons spend their entire lives in the trees. They have evolved large brains to cope with their crowded habitat."

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Atheists Believe that Nothing Created Everything

"I've challenged you repeatedly to cite even a single instance of an atheist stating that nothing created everything, and have been met with silence every single time. Every time." C. Howdy

• "It is now becoming clear that everything can – and probably did – come from nothing." Robert A. J. Matthews, physicist, Ashton University, England.
• "Space and time both started at the Big Bang and therefore there was nothing before it." Cornell University "Ask an Astronomer."
• "Some physicists believe our universe was created by colliding with another, but Kaku [a theoretical physicist at City University of New York] says it also may have sprung from nothing . . . " Scienceline.org
• "Even if we don't have a precise idea of exactly what took place at the beginning, we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific." Paul Davies, physicist, Arizona State University
• "Assuming the universe came from nothing, it is empty to begin with . . . Only by the constant action of an agent outside the universe, such as God, could a state of nothingness be maintained. The fact that we have something is just what we would expect if there is no God." Victor J. Stenger, atheist, Prof. Physics, University of Hawaii. Author of, God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist
• "Few people are aware of the fact that many modern physicists claim that things -- perhaps even the entire universe -- can indeed arise from nothing via natural processes. Creation ex nihilo -- Without God (1997), atheist, Mark I. Vuletic
• VIDEO CLIP (see www.PullThePlugOnAtheism.com /): "To understand these facts we have to turn to science. Where did they all come from, and how did they get so darned outrageous? Well, it all started with nothing." --"Fifty Outrageous Animal Facts,” Animal Planet

Professor Myers Flakes

The Challenge:
Here now is a big mystery. [Professor Myers] doesn’t know how the universe got here, but he somehow knows that the Creator wasn’t a "who." How does he know that? Does he have some inside information? I would like to hear it. Bring it on Professor Myers. How do you know that a "who" wasn’t involved in creation? Explain yourself. I'm calling your bluff. Even Richard Dawkins knows better. He’s a little more careful with his wording, with his: "Why There Almost Certainly is no God."

His answer:
"Awww, I've been challenged by Ray Comfort. It's hard to take the little man too seriously, though: last time we were supposed to debate on the radio, it ended up with a change of plans, and he instead weebled absurdly without me. At this point, though, his only challenge to me seems to be to explain this post more carefully to him, and I really don't feel much incentive to use even littler words to go over the same old ground that atheists are smart enough to grasp."

Friday, January 23, 2009

A Good Idea

Fran B said... The problem with this web site is that even though 99% of the people commenting here vehemently disagree with Ray, it perversely keeps the web site alive.

Don't know about you, but I think Ray has got his needle stuck in a groove. He has nothing new to say (except "everything was made from nothing").

So, why don't we, the commenters, who keep this pile of garbage alive, simply boycott it (perhaps for good)? The web site serves no useful purpose, so I don't think anybody's going to miss it, do you?

A Challenge to a Professor

P.Z. Myers, a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, was a little upset by my website www.PullThePlugOnAtheism.com/ He called it "pathetic, fallacious, foolish, counterfactual, weird, and sexist." This is because I simply said, "An atheist is someone who believes that nothing created everything."

The statement is a huge dilemma for the professor, because he knows that only a fool could believe the scientific impossibility that nothing created everything. He can’t say that the universe is eternal, because he knows that it's not. So he is left with the predicament of having to admit that something created everything. Professor Myers believes in a Creator of some sort; he just doesn’t know its identity. He may be a professor of atheism, but he is in truth just an agnostic.

So he defaults to the predictable "Well, who made God then?" This is what he said:

"And of course, he doesn't bother with this problem: who made God? I can guess how he'd respond: there was no 'who,' and God wasn't 'made.' At which time we do a little judo move and point out that the universe wasn't 'made' by a 'who,' either."

Here now is a big mystery. He doesn’t know how the universe got here, but he somehow knows that the Creator wasn’t a “who.” How does he know that? Does he have some inside information? I would like to hear it. Bring it on Professor Myers. How do you know that a "who" wasn’t involved in creation? Explain yourself. I'm calling your bluff. Even Richard Dawkins knows better. He’s a little more careful with his wording, with his: "Why There Almost Certainly is no God."

Thursday, January 22, 2009

Eternal Everything?

"You don't believe something made everything, do you? After all, God is everything, and God is eternal. Therefore, everything is eternal and was never made. Right? Maybe I'm wrong." Kaitlyn

There were a number of responses to the impossibility of the common atheistic belief that nothing made everything. They haven’t argued the point, but rather defaulted to the belief that the universal is eternal. But that won’t work. It’s a scientific impossibility. The Law of Thermodynamics proves that the universe cannot be eternal. Everything material runs down in time (even the sun will wear out). Leave a rock for a billion years and it will crumble to dust.

If the universe was eternal, it would be a trillion billion (plus infinite time) years old, and would have turned to dust a thousand billion trillion years ago. Only that which is non-material, dwelling outside the dimension of time, can be eternal. God qualifies for both. He is Spirit (non-material), and He dwells outside of time.

If you consider yourself to be intellectually honest, follow where knowledge takes you. That’s what the famous atheist Anthony Flew did. Once you acknowledge that God exists, you then have to make your mind up as to whether or not you are morally responsible to Him. If you believe that there is no Hell, you will live your life accordingly. If you believe Hell exists and that there will be divine retribution (ultimate justice), then you need a Savior to wash your sins away before the Day of Judgment. God provided one. Read the Gospel of John to see the details.

Monday, January 19, 2009

Response to the Below Blog

Here is the average response to the atheist's foundational belief that nothing made everything:

"Lying for Jesus, Ray? It doesn't really surprise me that after I explained that some atheist say 'I don't know' to the question of how the universe began you would continue to cling to this lie. Clinging to lies is what christians do."

"Ray, you are an ignorant liar who has no concept of logic or reason, and is delighted with that fact."

"I can't decide if you truly are a dunce or just the most thick-headed guy in the world."

There is no intelligent response that can justify the embarrassment of professed atheism. It is intellectual suicide. Remember, if you believe that something made everything, then you are not an atheist.

Please, seek God with all of your heart. Take the time to read the Gospel of John, or click on www.NeedGod.com (at the bottom of the header of this blog).

Sunday, January 18, 2009

Atheism's Best Kept Secret

An atheist is someone who believes that nothing made everything. He will of course deny that because it's an intellectual embarrassment, but if I say that I don’t believe that a builder built my house, then I am left with the insanity of believing that nothing built it. It just happened.

I have been called a liar many times because I have said the above, and challenged to back up what I am saying:

"But I have yet to see one [an atheist] say that everything came from 'nothing'."

"Once again Ray, there is no scientist that says Everything came from Nothing. Please provide an exact quote if you please."

"Aww Ray, back to the Nothing Created Everything lie again? That's your position, not ours, you are talking about yourself there."

"Ray, have you ever actually talked to an atheist and had them express these opinions to you?"

Scientists at Cornel University believe and teach the simple, that nothing created everything. They say,

" . . . space and time both started at the Big Bang and therefore there was nothing before it." (http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/)

"To the average person it might seem obvious that nothing can happen in nothing. But to a quantum physicist, nothing is, in fact, something." Discover Magazine “Physics & Math / Cosmology” http://discovermagazine.com/2002/apr/cover

Scienceline.org said,

"Some physicists believe our universe was created by colliding with another, but Kaku [a theoretical physicist at City University of New York] says it also may have sprung from nothing . . . "

"It is rather fantastic to realize that the laws of physics can describe how everything was created in a random quantum fluctuation out of nothing, and how over the course of 15 billion years, matter could organize in such complex ways that we have human beings sitting here, talking, doing things intentionally." (Alan Harvey Guth theoretical physicist and cosmologist). Discover Magazine, April 1, 2002

Go to www.PullThePlugOnAtheism.com and watch a short video clip from Animal Planet, which also tells us that scientists believe that nothing made everything.

If you are an atheist you deny the initial Cause, so you are stuck with the intellectual embarrassment of believing that nothing made everything, and you do it hiding behind the skirts of science. The Bible is so right when it says "The fool has said in his heart 'There is no God'" (Psalm 14:1).

The Intelligent Atheist is not an Atheist

For many years I have appealed to the logic of everything material necessitating a Creator. When I have done this, I have noticed that atheists run to a predictable refuge. See if you can see how they deal with it:

"If some sort of evidence turned up that a conscious entity was behind the creation of the universe itself . . . then it would simply open up this HUGE question of what this entity is and where it came from."

"So Ray, what is the explanation of where God came from?"

"If everything needs a maker, who made the maker?"

"Alright, I'll bite. Okay, a creator created the Universe. Where did this creator come from?"

It is scientifically impossible for nothing to create everything. If nothing created everything, then the "nothing" isn’t nothing. It is something, because it had the amazing ability to create everything. Only an unscientific ignoramus would hold to the thought that nothing created everything. We have the dilemma of having everything, so we therefore have to come to the conclusion that something made it. Whatever it was, it had to be non-material (unseen), eternal (without beginning or end), and it had to be omnipotent (have the amazing ability to create everything from nothing). If the professing atheist concedes to such basic logic (which he must or he reveals that he is unscientific and unintelligent), then he’s not an atheist. He is in truth an agnostic ("One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism."). He is someone who believes that there was a creative force that brought everything into existence, but for some reason he denies that it was God.

Saturday, January 17, 2009

Today's Atheist Memory Verse

"But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14)

Friday, January 16, 2009

Knowing God

"I thought that God was so big that none of us could actually know him, just that we needed to accept him into our homes and such. So, can we really know the endless fathomless of God?"

Einstein had an incredible mind. His wife apparently didn’t. But she knew Albert Einstein intimately.

When the Bible speaks of the intimate consummation of a marriage, it uses a very special word. It says that Adam knew his wife.

The Bible calls the Church "the Bride of Christ" (see Revelation 22:17). As Christians, we are "espou sed" (engaged) to Jesus Christ (see 2 Corinthians 11:2), and the day will come when consumation will take place. Jesus is coming for His beloved bride.

Back to Albert and his wife. She knew him, but she didn’t know his mind. The same is the case with the Christian's love relationship to God:

"O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counselor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen" (Romans 11:33-37).

I can't explain what it’s like to know God, but I can introduce you to Him. And the only way there can be a relationship between you and your Creator, is for you to repent and trust the Savior (see John 14:6).

Thursday, January 15, 2009

Mob-rule and Gravestones

"If there is an unchanging absolute definition of right and wrong I have never seen it in action. I have heard it talked about but never agreed on. For example homosexuality. One day I predict that your views on homosexuality will be viewed as immoral as those that were once held about slavery." Milo

You have a problem when it comes to your moral relativity. You can’t use the word "immoral" and it have any real meaning. In time your definition shifts with whatever society dictates. If society says that the killing of babies through partial-birth abortion is moral, then to you it becomes moral. If it says that the killing of Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and blacks is good for society, then it becomes good and ethical for you. Morality and immorality are dictated by your mob-rule philosophy.

It is very strange that you say "If there is an unchanging absolute definition of right and wrong I have never seen it in action." Are you saying that you have never seen the result of violation of absolute right and absolute wrong? Then let me point one out to you. A graveyard. That is the violation of right and wrong in action: "The soul that sins shall die” (Ezekiel 18:4). See also Romans 6:23.

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

The Open Mind of an Atheist

"Ephemeral Mortal said...I just love this site. It's great to see all these atheists hanging on by the skin of their teeth." Atheist Kourou replied "Well, I suppose that if you can believe in talking snakes you can believe anything."

Kourou...Did you know that a gorilla can learn thousands of English words and has the capacity to use language?:

"More recently, the striking achievements of Kanzi, a bonobo who apparently has learned more than 3,000 spoken English words and can produce (by means of lexigrams) novel English sentences and comprehend English sentences he has never heard before, has strengthened the case of those who argue that the thinking of higher apes is much more complex than had previously been assumed and that the capacity for language use, at least at a rudimentary level, is not exclusively human."

Do you believe in talking birds? Do you think porpoises speak to each other? How about whales? Do dogs communicate to each other? Do you think they understand English words? Have you ever spoken to a dog? Has a dog or cat ever "told" you that it was hungry? Have you ever heard of dogs warning their owners of a fire in their home? I presume that you believe that man evolved from fish. Why then is your mind so closed to the possibility that an animal could communicate with humans? It seems that the atheist mind is open to anything as long as it’s not in the Bible. I wonder why?

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Lying Swindlers, Looking for a Fast Buck?

Hector (presumably a Christian) said "I wonder if you have found any really good sites for these kinds of things. You can go to Answers in Genesis website; also Institute for Creation Research for some really compelling things."

Lago (presumably an atheist) replied, "Wow you really are just full of it. I have visited those sites and they are even more amusing than Ray's. Did you know there was actually a captioned picture stating that one of their 'scientists' had clocked a river moving at 107,000 ft per second. I hope you can do the math, but just in case you cannot, that translates to 200 miles per second, or 720,000 miles per hour. I do hope you realize how absurd that figure is. This figure was also used in conjunction with saying how that Grand Canyon was formed rapidly. So no Hector, they have only convinced me that they are lying swindlers looking to make a fast buck off of people such as yourself."

Lago . . . I may be wrong here, but I think you are misunderstanding what the scientist is saying. It is not a reference to a river moving at a speed of 107,000 feet per second, but the volume of 107,000 feet of water being moved in a second of time. For example, the following is a government agency report: "Maxima: May 1949: Discharge 107,000 ft3/s (3,030 m3/s) at 6:00 am….by slope-area method, by city engineer of Fort Worth."

So don’t throw out the baby with the river water. Go back and check out what he was saying. I would presume that that amount of water moving at that speed could have carved out the Grand Canyon very quickly indeed. Water can move mountains, but no amount could move a closed mind.

Monday, January 12, 2009

A Question for Atheists.

Do you think fire existed before man discovered it? Of course it did. Even though no one had ever seen it, but it was a hidden reality (within the laws of nature).

It is interesting to note that fire only manifests itself when it has something to consume. If there is nothing material or no oxygen left for it to burn, its rage dissipates, and it disappears from our sight.

The Bible continually likens the justice of God to a "consuming fire." It is passive until there is injustice. However, don’t make the tragic mistake of thinking that it doesn't exist just because you can't see it. And don't be deceived into thinking that the patience of God is a sign that He has no knowledge of your sins. The day will come when the Law of God will manifest in rage upon everything that is evil. The justice of God will come "In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ . . . " (2 Thessalonians 1:8).

You may be familiar with Moses and the burning bush. It raged with fire, and yet the bush wasn’t consumed: "And the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed" (Exodus 3:2). As Moses approached the bush, God told him to take off his shoes (a gesture of humility) because the land on which he stood was holy ground. As he did so, he was allowed to approach God, and he wasn’t consumed for his sins.

God (in His kindness) has made a way where we may approach Him and not be consumed by the wrath of His Law. He did it by becoming a human being and receiving the fire of His wrath upon Himself, so that it wouldn’t have to fall on guilty sinners. He paid the fine so that we could leave the courtroom. God can legally dismiss our case. So humble yourself today and approach God through the blood of the cross, and He will dismiss your case and allow you to live: "Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: for our God is a consuming fire" (Hebrews 12:28-29).

Sunday, January 11, 2009

Enlighten Me

According to the News Bureau at the University of Illinois, "Life did not begin with one primordial cell. Instead, there were initially at least three simple types of loosely constructed cellular organizations. They swam in a pool of genes, evolving in a communal way that aided one another in bootstrapping into the three distinct types of cells by sharing their evolutionary inventions."

I have some news for the University News Bureau. If you talk about life beginning as a "loosely constructed cellular organizations" that swam "in a pool of genes," then it wasn’t the beginning at all, because loosely constructed cellular organizations swimming in a pool of genes already existed.

Ex-atheist, Lee Strobel said, "Essentially, I realized that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason. Those leaps of faith were simply too big for me to take . . ."

For the beginning to be the beginning, there must be nothing. Zilch. If you disagree, in simple language, explain to me where I am going wrong. Tell me what was in the beginning--what was it that began the evolutionary process? Let me guess your answer. You don't know what it was, but you know that it wasn't God.

Saturday, January 10, 2009

A Fly on the Wall

Pic. This image depicts a fly's ear, which is being used as a model for research at the University of Maryland for miniature acoustic sensors and sound localization techniques.

In Arlington, Virginia, a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Maryland is researching miniature acoustic sensors and sound localization techniques using the hearing mechanisms of flies as a model.

"Such research could benefit the Air Force by leading to the development of an artificial fly unmanned aerial vehicle with combined hearing and vision for navigation to inaccessible locations. It could also result in micro aerial vehicles and UAVs having improved homing capabilities.
"Dr. Miao Yu, team lead for the project funded by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, said her team has found that the fly ear represents a nature designed optimal structure for obtaining the best acoustic directional cues at 5 kHz(italics added)."

There is an alternative to the Air Force actually remaking the Fly Ear. Let’s play pretend for a moment. Imagine if they had the time to wait for evolution make one for them. I know that we are speaking of a huge amount of time, but let’s pretend anyway. After all, this is how evolution did it in the beginning.

Evolution made everything over millions or even billions of years, for no reason. But the Air Force Fly Ear has something more going for it than the process of evolution had in the beginning. The Air Force want it to happen, so that may help.

Imagine being a fly on the wall and watching when the process starts. I wonder how long it will take for something to begin, from nothing.

Friday, January 9, 2009

Cheating "Creators"

"Kaitlyn said... Actually, scientists recently created an entire reproducing ecosystem through chemicals (mostly RNA) they concocted themselves, synthetically. The ecosystem and RNA are self-replicating and evolving just at the RNA-world hypothesis (abiogenesis) predicts. So much for scientists unable to create life (or at least the precursor to it)."

Kaitlyn...No, they didn't "create" anything. They manufactured something using God's existing materials. To "create" you have to start from nothing. Scientists can't make a bean, a pea, or even a tiny grain of sand from nothing. They don't know how. Unless you know something I don't. Enlighten me.

Thursday, January 8, 2009

Getting Things Humming

A group of leading evolutionary biologists have gathered together in an effort to create a living hummingbird. Rather than "cheating" by using existing material, they have decided to duplicate the actual beginning of creation. They have determined to begin the process from nothing, as in the genesis of life’s origins.

They have already begun by listing what they need to create the small but intricate male bird. They require some sort of bone material to make lightweight hollow bones, very strong heart muscle, living blood, a variety of feather material, substance to make a long beak and even longer tongue, two eyes, a digestive system, lungs, kidneys, a liver, an appetite, an instinct to survive, a fear of predators, the ability to find and recognize a mate, and the ability to reproduce after its own kind. They will also need to make the ability to instinctively create a nest and raise young, and of course the ability to fly forwards, backwards, sideways, and to remain stationary in the air.

Unfortunately, they are not sure how to create what they need, using nothing, as in the beginning. They have admitted that that’s their only problem. They are restricted to using nothing to create something, as in the beginning. They don’t know what to do next and they don’t know who to ask. Still, they are adamant that as soon as they discover how to make something from nothing, the process will begin. It’s simply a lack of time and of understanding.

Meanwhile, the men have formed a commission to discuss their problem, and named it the "Don’t Understand How" committee. "DUH" for short.

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened" (Romans 1:20-21).

Wednesday, January 7, 2009

Is This Your Cap?

I am amazed at how many professing atheists are intellectually offended when they hear it said that an atheist believes that nothing made everything. If that offends them, then they shouldn’t take the label "atheist." If I say that I don’t see any evidence that a builder built my house, then I am stuck with the lunacy of believing that no one built it. It built itself. If the dunce cap fits, I have to wear it, and that’s the cap that fits the atheist whether he likes it or not. The Bible has good reason to say "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'"

"Jason Jarred said...I'm going to *beg* other atheists not to respond to the obvious baiting in this blog post, it only validates Ray's ego."

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Tough Answers for Atheists

I watched a short video (presumably presented by an atheist) called "Tough Question for Christians" recently. He began his tough question, by saying that he had videotape evidence that you dented his car. He gave you 24 hours to apologize, and if you didn’t, he was going to throw gasoline on you and burn you alive. That is tough.

He then compared his analogy with the message of Christianity, saying that sinning against God was like denting a car, and that God will burn people in Hell for "not believing in Him" and for any other "little, tiny thing" they may have done.

Let’s look at a more applicable analogy. The police discover the grisly scene of six mutilated bodies of teenage girls, who were tied up, tortured, viciously raped, and then had their throats cut. They have your fingerprints on the knife, your DNA at the crime scene, and videotape of you boasting to a friend about how terrified the girls were, when you slowly cut their throats. you thought that was funny.

The judge finds you guilty of the heinnous crimes of rape and murder of the six girls, and sentences you to death by the electric chair. You react by saying, "My crime was petty. It was no big deal. This judge is evil."

The atheist’s mistake is to think that the God he doesn’t believe in, has the same moral standards as humanity. Yet, the God he must face on Judgment Day is morally perfect and utterly holy. He considers lust to be adultery and hatred to be murder. We are told in Scripture that lying lips are an abomination to Him. He killed a husband and wife (in the Book of Acts) simply because they told one lie. Lying is so serious to Him, the Bible warns that all liars with have their part in the lake of fire. Sin is not about "little, tiny things" that we have done. It is deadly serious.

Yet, God is rich in mercy towards us. Isn’t that true? More than likely you have lied, looked with lust, stolen, blasphemed His name, etc., and yet He hasn’t treated you according to your sins and struck you dead. Well, not yet. But it will happen one day, and then you have to face Him for all those unspeakably serious crimes against His Law.

The other mistake the atheist made was to think that people will end up in Hell, for not believing in God. That’s just not true. Plenty of people who believe in God will end up in Hell. Among them will be the many religious hypocrites, and millions of others, who were warned of the reality of Hell, but refused to repent and trust the Savior.

God has no pleasure in your death. If you find yourself in Hell, you will have no one to blame but yourself. The Bible warns that our damnation is just. Justice will certainly be done, if His mercy is spurned.

Monday, January 5, 2009

Be Reasonable

Theist Christopher Geiser said: "Math teachers are not seen as narrow-minded when they say there is only one answer to 2+2." Antagonist, Jason, replied, "They can also demonstrate that answer."

But math teachers cannot demonstrate anything to someone who is unreasonable. If an unreasonable person (for some reason) wanted to change the definition of the number 2, and then say that the second 2 was not the same quantity as the first, you have a stalemate. To argue any logic, you need both parties to be reasonable.

This is the problem theists have with those who believe themselves to be atheists. The fact that there cannot be a creation without a Creator is reasonable common sense. That common sense is abandoned by the atheist. He keeps coming back and parroting "Show me the evidence," when the evidence is as plain as two plus two equals four.

Sunday, January 4, 2009

Mistakes About Medical Mistakes

As a professing atheist, Kaitlyn has no faith in God, but she said that she has faith in the medical profession. So, I told her to trust only God, and double-check everything else because the eighth leading cause of death in the United States is medical mistakes.

Another atheist (Dimensio) took acceptation to that, and said, "According to the Centers for Disease Control, the top ten leading causes of death in the United States as of 2005 are:

1. Heart disease: 652,091
2. Cancer: 559,312
3. Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 143,579
4. Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 130,933
5. Accidents (unintentional injuries): 117,809
6. Diabetes: 75,119
7. Alzheimer's disease: 71,599
8. Influenza/Pneumonia: 63,001
9. Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 43,901
10. Septicemia: 34,136

Mr. Comfort, do you have more recent figures, have you simply conducted no research, or are you lying?”

Dimensio, here are some details:

"Medical Negligence: Widespread and Deadly. The Institute of Medicine/National Academy of Sciences has found that 98,000 Americans die each year as a result of preventable medical errors. Preventable medical errors kill more Americans than diabetes, influenza and Alzheimer's; and if tracked separately, would be the sixth-leading cause of death in the United States."

So I was wrong to trust the media when they said that medical mistakes were the eighth leading cause of death in the U.S. They are the sixth (although this too, could be wrong).

Watch as pedestrians step out in front of your car as you pull up at stop lights. They don’t even look at you, because they completely trust your ability to stop. They also trust your brakes. They trust the "cross now" sign, and they trust the lights that tell you to stop.

Hundreds of thousands of pedestrians are dead and maimed, because of a misdirected trust. Even those who love you can let you down, because of an inability to fulfill their word.

God is not like us. He is infallible. You can trust Him implicitly. He will never disappoint you. Ever. Check and double-check everything else, including the prescription your busy doctor scribbles out and the busy pharmacist fulfils. If you don’t, you may not be around to warn others not to make the same fatal mistake.

Saturday, January 3, 2009

The Birth of the Sun

Aristotle once stated, "It is impossible that movement should ever come into being or cease to be, for it must always have existed. Nor can time come into being or cease to be." Scientists now know better. They say, "Current theories hold that about 5 billion years ago the sun began to form from a huge dark cloud of dust and vapor that included the remnants of earlier stars which had exploded." Other experts tell us that "The Sun was also born in such a cluster, around 4.6 billion years ago, along with thousands of young stars."

So it is well accepted in the scientific community that the sun had a beginning. Here’s my question: Where did the huge dark cloud of dust and vapor that included the remnants of earlier stars come from? It too, must have had a beginning. Who or what created it, shaped it into the sun, and placed it a just the right distance from the earth so that life could begin? To say that the dust and vapor were eternal is to go back to Aristotle’s erroneous belief, which violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. What is the scientific explanation for where the dust and vapor came from? Atheists don’t have one. Theists do.

Friday, January 2, 2009

Intellectual Degradation

"Pretty much all the animals we use for food, clothing, and various other purposes (goats, sheep, cows, pigs, chickens) were created by mankind, via the same process of inbreeding. I think goats and sheep are quite nice to look at." David Irish

You are using the word "created" incorrectly, in the context of which we speak. Man cannot create a grain of sand from nothing, let alone a living breathing entity. If you disagree, please give me evidence of any human being creating something material from nothing (I don't mean creating a new breed of bacteria, by messing with bacteria).

Man may manipulate, engineer, influence, or maneuver, but he cannot create a green pea, sheep, chickens, a pig, a tree, or even a flea, from nothing.

We know that with all of his genius, man cannot create anything from nothing, so how intellectually preposterous is it to actually believe that in the beginning nothing created everything? Atheism is off the charts of human folly. By contrast, the flat-earther is a real genius.

Thursday, January 1, 2009

2009. Happy New Year

"I would like to hear your quantitative answers as to how big the universe is, what light is, and what life is. Since God has revealed all of these answers to you in the Bible, I’m sure that these answers will be answered with 100% precision, and will be reflected in current observations." Mudley

I have no faith in "current" observations. Every generation thinks that they are current--that they are "modern." In 20 years time they will laugh at current clothes and hair styles. In 100 years what science believes today will be a joke, and they will no doubt believe that their current knowledge is cool. Man’s quantitative knowledge is a tiny drop in the ocean of what actually is absolute truth.

To use the word "big" in describing the universe shows the smallness of our minds. If an elephant is big, what word describes the universe? The best one I can currently come up with is the "infinitude" of the universe. There's not a wall around the edge of space. Traveling at the speed of light, you would go on forever, no matter what direction in which you travel. But one thing I do know, God fills the universe. That's a big brain-strain.

He is also the source of light and the source of life. Around 800 years BC, the Psalmist maintained this: "For with you is the fountain of life: in your light shall we see light" (Psalm 36:9). In speaking of the Messiah, John said the same thing: "In him was life; and the life was the light of men" (John 1:4). Jesus said the same thing of Himself: "Then spoke Jesus again to them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that follows me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life" (John 8:12).

Then the Apostle Paul confirms this with his: "But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who has abolished death, and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel" (2 Timothy 1:10). There you are. That's 100% precision, straight from the ever-current Bible.

SPECIAL NOTE TO MY ATHEIST (FRIENDS): It's been 2009 years since Jesus of Nazareth walked on this earth. May this be the year you come to know Him. In the meanwhile, may God continue to bless you and keep you and your family in health.