We will not be judged by how many diplomas

 

“At the end of life we will not be judged by how many diplomas we have received, how much money we have made, how many great things we have done.
We will be judged by “I was hungry, and you gave me something to eat, I was naked and you clothed me. I was homeless, and you took me in.”
Mother Teresa

Matthew 25 reference:

34 “Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.

35 For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in;

36 naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me

Conversations: The 6000 year question

Just old IS the Earth?

I found it very interesting that Presidential Candidate Ben Carson addressed a question and a issue which I often see discussed and debated and some length in discussions related to origins.

The question is about the age of the earth as it relates to “Creationism”. Creationism is a phrase I put in quotes because I find so much ignorance and fallacy as to what our modern secular society thinks these things mean.

At any rate I found it very interesting that Ben Carson tired to answer the question very similar to the way I usually answer it.  The topic can lead also to the Theological topic and debate on the  “Gap Theory” or in some way explaining that the Bible does not specify an age of the earth.

This thread is from conversations I’ve participated in on the topic.

 

Conversations: Evolution, Poor Design, No Design

Conversation Snippet
(Taken from one of Dr. Hunter’s discussions
and debates with Random Evolutionists)

Random Evolution Believer says:
“You are free to believe what you like. I am merely pointing out that evolution explains poor design and religion, or ‘intelligent design’, doesn’t.”

My Response:
A belief in “Random” Evolution does not explain poor design and in fact doesn’t “explain” any kind of design. The very belief that no cognizance, awareness or intelligence is required means that there is “NO DESIGN”, let alone a poor design.

That’s the point of this book. To show that there is of necessity design involved irrespective of who you believe to be it’s source, it is a design on so many levels, including at the level of we have come to call informational technology.

The question of whether the design is “good” or “poor” or whether the design WAS “good” and deteriorated for some reason, or what the actual intent of the design was/is (a question critical to whether or not the design is “poor”) moves into a separate question from the one addressed in this book. The point is, if the design were random or even if it was driven only by “mindless” forces such as natural selection it would not be a design at all but simply chance.

In fact if you consider the implications of Dr. Meyers book then you should also understand that his central argument goes beyond “Evolution” because natural selection, the supposed driving force of evolution, depends FIRST on the existence of the design elements the book is discussing.

Please consider that the question of whether the design is poor, good or perfect and why it is in the condition it is in is a separate question from whether or not there is an intelligence required for the design to exist at all.

*Note: I distinguish the belief in “Random Evolution” from a belief in Evolution in general.  The latter leads to a separate discussion from the former which is a line many people blur and is a very important distinction that should not be missed in serious analysis.

The process current day scientists call Evolution depends by necessity on life processes with the coded processes of DNA and RNA already preexisting before any sort of “natural selection” or “survival of the fittest” has any chance to get started.  This means that any processes called Evolution of any kind depend ultimately on what is already a clearly Intelligent Design.

evolution-a-rather-intelligent

Conversation Snippet: Evolution NOT about the origin of life

 

Conversation Snippet (from one of my many conversations / debates with Random Evolutionists) 

Most people that say they “believe in Evolution”, i.e. the common man often speak of it as an answer to the origin of life.  They fail to understand even the very belief system they are believing in because they don’t grasp that evolution is NOT an explanation of the origin of life at all.

Evolution depends first on the existence of the cell, DNA and all it’s replicating chemistry before it can even HOPE to get started (and still has MANY intellectual hurdles to overcome even assuming a start from preexisting simple life).

At any rate, anyone that really understands the theory of Evolution knows that it is not an explanation for the origin of life, because it depends on the existence of life to begin with therefore this book is addressing a question that Darwinian Evolution does not even address, the origin of the chemical programming and information that is the basis of physical life.

 

 

Conversation snippet: When Evolution is no longer ‘science’

 

When is what you may call ‘Evolution’ no longer real ‘science’?

When you begin to describe things that you interpret to have happened, especially many, many thousands of years ago (before recorded history) and neither YOU nor anyone you know has actually observed any of it let alone can you or anyone you know repeat it.

Of course a person may define a word such as ‘science’ or any other word in any way they’d like in order to satisfy a motivation but if the goal is to determine ‘facts’  or in a larger sense ‘truth’ then the old fashioned understanding of science where required things to be “testable” “measurable” “falsifiable” “repeatable” etc. reflected an important way to reach certain categories of knowledge reliably.

Consider that disingenuous and even deceptive beliefs have entered into consciousness of millions today by describing massive amounts of assumptions as “evolution” and also asserting them to be ‘science’.

Insofar as ‘science’ deals with things we can all call “provable” “observable” “repeatable” “falsifiable” “FACTS” then much of what is being placed under the umbrella of “evolution” is in fact not at all ‘science’ in any traditional sense.

What used to be called “adaptation” or what some now call “micro evolution” fits the definition of “science” that most reasonable minds can accept without much difficulty.  In point of fact these features of “evolution” described this way are a direct function of the “DESIGN” inherent in cell life and DNA chemical information programming.

On the other hand assertions such as “millions of years ago a single cell became a sea animal of some kind which many millions of years later gave rise to everything from Elephants of land to Birds of the air”, well these type of assertions are not in anyway science in the sense of the former understanding.

These type of evolutionary ideas are interpretations based on observing what is and imagining (quite irrationally actually) what MIGHT have occurred. These things have not been observed, repeated or in any way “proved”.

They are simply “beliefs” paraded under the guise of the respected word “science” when they in fact are NOT science in the common sense that people understand it. Evolutionary assertions of this type are actually a competing belief system to which people ascribe to it’s interpretations of the physical world often with the same zeal and fervent defense as any religious zealot.

In addition a religious zealot at least may be basing their zeal on observable evidence that they have themselves observed such as the authors of the Scriptures asserted.  The source of their zeal in that sense may be based on definitive evidence they experienced even if that evidence is not ‘repeatable’ for others, at least not for those whose heart is not similarly positioned.

In that sense, it’s possible for the spiritual minded individual to be far more “scientific” than those placing a massively broad brush over the term “evolution”.

1Tim 6:20 …, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: