Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Home School Heaven

One of the blogs that I frequent, voxday.blogspot.com, had a post about home schooling this week. Apparently, the liberals in America do not want anyone to home school because it takes our kids out of their "indoctrination centers" also known as public education. (NOTE: I do not believe that public school teachers are bad...some of our best friends teach in public schools, but so much of the curriculum that kids get today is driven by a radical liberal agenda.) But here's a quote from his blog that I heartily endorse:

If the feminist Left is so concerned about the problem of unpaid homeschooling mothers, there's an easy solution: give them the money that their school district would get if their kids were enrolled in the public school.

Sinking Ship

Analogies can help people to understand a complex problem. The writer of the following article paints a good word picture:


I'm all for helping people in need, but the USA is sinking under the load of unmitigated immigration. In the long run, allowing illegal aliens to have amnesty will hurt everyone. The short term political gain compounds the problem for everyone.

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Good Reading

I wish I could write like this:


In it, Roddy Bullock compares Darwinists to the literary character Ahab from Moby Dick. Bullock is exactly right in that Darwinists launch their harpoons at anyone mentioning creation, God, Intelligent Designer, design, or purpose. It's no wonder that schools, "scientific journals", and the media wilt under the pressure from these modern Ahabs to conform to Darwinist dogma. They're afraid they'll be hit with a lawsuit harpoon, or a bad press harpoon.

Friday, May 18, 2007

Voting in Vain

Should Christians vote for whichever popular/famous Republican wins the nomination in an effort to keep Hillary from winning? Is it about voting for the lesser of 2 evils?

Should Christians consider "throwing away" their vote by voting for a third party that more closely resembles their beliefs?

I propose that Christians are throwing away their vote if they vote for an increasingly liberal and corrupt Republican party--with the exception of a dwindling few upright statesmen and stateswomen.

Our country "enjoyed" the power of a Republican presidency and a Republican majority in both the House and the Senate for 4 years! What Christian principles were advanced during this political "utopia"?

- We still face unlimited abortion
- The government has grown in size and intrusiveness
- Congress still spends more inflated fortunes than Clinton has had mistresses.
- Congress has corrupted itself with no term limits, and they simply legislate to stay in power.
- Public education has simply become liberal brainwashing rather than increasing critical thinking skills.
- We are entangled in more than 1 foreign war, each of which is looking increasingly quagmirish (to clarify, I am not against the war on terror, but the most costly war in history, WW2, only lasted 5 years...and these wars will soon exceed that. We need to finish them decisively without delay.)

What did the 8 year Clintonian hiatus gain?
-Two possibly conservative judges. Hopefully, they will prove to be more closely aligned with conservative/Constitutional principles than the previous supposedly conservative judges like O'Conner and Kennedy.
-No more domestic terrorist attacks.

Salvation is not found in politics. No matter who comes to power, God is in control. Perhaps the realization of another Clinton administration will rally the Christian conservatives to actually do something to change our culture from the inside.

While it won't save us, you can at least keep your integrity by voting for the Constitution Party!

Wednesday, May 16, 2007


The only group of people that it is is politically correct to discriminate against (besides pro-lifers) are those who question Darwinian dogma...at least according to the mainstream liberal media.


Intelligent Design stalwart Guillermo Gonzalez has been denied tenure at Iowa State university despite the fact that he far exceeded the minimum requirements.


Score 1 for the Good Guys

Planned Parenthood are the bad guys; yet they want to sue a young lady for exposing their blatant criminal negligence.

Check out his article:


Pray for Ms. Rose as her courageous actions exposed an obviously underreported crime. And pray that abortion will be forced into extinction.

Here's another good article regarding the same situation:

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Final Score

Spiderman 15
Batman 16
Hulk 21
Superman 23

Spiderman 44
Batman 55
Hulk 88
Superman ?? (The counters were in awe, and lost count)

In the end a second competition was established to determine the winner of the push-up championship, and the Hulk was declared victorious for holding the half push-up pose the longest.

Monday, May 14, 2007

Better Battle Plan

A few nights ago, Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron challenged the world that they could prove the existence of God using only science and no appeal to faith. While these men are remarkable evangelists, they stepped into unknown waters by agreeing to a debate format while trying to prove this age-old question of the existence of God. Had I been tasked with helping the men to format their “battle” plan for the debate, I would have had them follow these guidelines instead of the ones they used.

The design argument is a good one. It is compelling, but Comfort did not go deep enough or convincing enough to build a compelling case. There is inherent design in the universe. He should have said, “Since there is a limited time available to deliver this message, I will give you an abbreviated list of the features in the universe that exhibit design features consistent with complex, purposefully built machine. By themselves, each example is reason to expect a creator, but together they are powerful and compelling motivation to seek this creator.

  • Symbiosis when two or more organisms cooperate in order to survive (hundreds of known examples exist on the planet)
  • Symmetry – Nothing in random, purposeless, unguided processes suggest that symmetry would be expected in living organisms.
  • The existence of the mind, rationalism, and logic suggest a designer.
  • The fact that humans can recognize beauty beyond reproductive benefits compels a designer.
  • Humans exhibit love, mercy, philanthropy, and pleasure. Why should any of these exist in a purposeless universe?
  • Irreducible complexity. Molecular machines exist that cannot function with any fewer parts. In other words, life was designed with exact specifications. The famous flagellum tail is an example of this. Many improper rebuttals and flawed logic have led atheists to believe that they have defeated this argument. No doubt you will hear one from the other side shortly.
  • The finely-tuned character of the universe. Were gravity any stronger or weaker, by even the slightest margin, life could not exist. The strong nuclear force exhibits exactly the right amount of force for life. The size ratio of the proton to neutron ensure that life is possible. Were neutrons the same size, then all protons would decay into neutrons, which would end all hopes for life. The electromagnetic force cannot be varied in any measure or life would be impossible. The cosmologic constant is perfectly suited to life. If it were different by even the slightest percentage…you guessed it, life would not exist.
    The ubiquitous examples of golden ratios in biology, astronomy, chemistry, and other observable sciences indicate that the preferential use of this ratio has purpose. That humans recognize that the ratio is aesthetically pleasing is fascinating.
  • The Earth’s perfect location to sustain life is a powerful argument for design. The earth is exactly the right distance from the sun for liquid water to exist. The proximity of the sun in conjunction with the earth’s proximity to her own moon produces the tides, which oxygenates the oceans and allows aquatic life. The earth’s atmospheric air is surprisingly perfect for breathable air, controlled combustion, controlled flight, photosynthesis, condensation, evaporation, and UV protection. On top of that, the earth’s atmospheric content is transparent. We can see through it to see each other and beyond it to see the heavens. This is a profound design feature.
  • That humans can understand mathematics and chemistry at an elementary level allows us to measure and comprehend the universe implying that we were meant to study and understand our environment. But chemistry and mathematics, while understandable at an elementary level is also fascinatingly complex. There is no inherent reason why the universe should have developed mathematics and chemistry at all, let alone in a manner that humans can comprehend them.
  • The existence of information is unexpected in an atheist universe. Information must come from a source higher than the measured scope. Specified complexity is another way to refer to the presence of information in our universe. It’s not just ordered. It’s not just complex. It’s ordered and complex in a way that has meaning and purpose. Naturalism cannot explain this.

For the atheists, any one of these arguments would be enough to show the existence of an all-powerful creator. So by just having a naturalistic argument for 1 item does not disprove the existence of God. Even if an atheistic mechanism that works does not disprove the idea that God created it and keeps it in motion.

To answer the question of suffering, evil, and even cancer, the argument has to go to another level by recognizing that sin has infected the universe, sin that Adam and Eve brought into existence when they disobeyed God. This appeal does require the use of the Bible to have a full and complete understanding.

Now, for me to withstand the arguments from the atheists, I should spend some time on the talkorgins website. It seems Comfort and Cameron neglected, to their shame, this necessary tactic to excel in the debate format. It does not make their purpose, passion, or message any less real, they just didn't succeed as well as they could have with a better battle plan.

Thursday, May 10, 2007

Atheist's arguments...pretty empty after all

Last night the debate between Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron vs. the atheists was aired on ABC News Nightline. I commented on the portion of the debate that was posted on the website yesterday. Today I intend to rebut the atheist’s arguments in this post.

The atheists in the debate were introduced as Brianand Kelly. The impression that these unknown, non-scientists could overwhelm the star duo and professional evangelists Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort, left the audience with the notion that anyone can disprove God using a little logic.

As a young earth creationist I was very disappointed in the Cameron/Comfort duo’s “scientific” arguments and (lack of) preparation to face atheistic counter-arguments. You can see more of my comments in yesterday’s post, Unprepared.

As promised in yesterday’s post, I’ll point out the flaws in the atheist’s argument.

Brian went first and said that the builder/painter used as a key element of Comfort’s argument can be called to ask if they built/painted something. My response would be to them, “Could you please get anyone from the Ming dynasty (builders of the Great Wall) or Michelangelo on the phone or at least their email addresses.” If he appealed to records and history to prove they existed and produced their masterpieces, then just as easily one could appeal to the sound historical legitimacy of Genesis 1. While Genesis is considered sacred by Christians, it has never been shown to be false in historical matters.

While this is not a scientific argument, Brianlamented that Christianity allowed for the possibility that hardened criminals and even Hitler could be in Heaven as long as they asked for forgiveness of sin and accepted Christ as Savior. Isn’t this the beauty of God’s grace? Jesus’ payment for sins was enough to forgive anything you’ve done. If Hitler can be saved (which, no evidence exists that he ever repented) then you can too. Your sins can be 4GiVn.

Brian went on to call his opponents anti-scientists. This is a common tactic by atheists, because it makes Christians appear to denounce scientific principles. Brian's arguments at the point have been debunked by numerous creation scientists

- “The eye is wired backwards.” If the eye was not designed as it is, you would
be blind. The eye was perfectly designed to exist in an environment that is
bombarded with ultraviolet radiation. If, as perceived the eye were to be
rewired forwards, the UV light would blind
- “Male nipples.” It could be just as easily argued that this is design efficiency. The same tissues in unborn humans exist before the reproductive organs take shape. So the existence of common tissue in unborn children is a feature of efficient development.
- “Snake Legs.” The loss of snake legs is questionable science in the first place. Secondly, is the loss of information really supposed to explain the massive GAIN in
complexity and information required for Darwinian evolution? The loss of legs/genetic information is better explained by a creation model, where we live
a once-perfect world that is continually getting worse through the compounded
effects of sin. (question to Brian – Can you give me even one example of an
organism gaining NEW genetic information, which increases complexity and
function, exclusively by natural processes as described by molecules to man

Surprisingly, and naively, Brian spins a yarn that atheists are more philanthropic and have contributed more good to the world than religious folk. I may do another entire posting about this one, but in short, Brian would be hard-pressed to prove that atheists do more good for the world than even one of these organizations: Compassion International, World Vision, Amor Ministries, Southern Baptist Missions, Interfatih Hospitality Network…The list could go on and on.

Lastly, Brian uses the word good and compassionate when referring to atheists. By what standard exactly can an atheist measure goodness? They have no reason to be compassionate. To an atheist, compassion is logically contrary to the idea of evolutionary doctrine. The weak and unfortunate simply pollute the gene pool and slow our evolutionary progress. Hitler’s entire genocidal program was motivated by a fully developed Darwinian conclusion.

Brian's partner, Kelly then took the stand and really offered only an amateurish rebuttal of the Christian duo. She redefined science as it is understood by materialists today rather than the root of the word which Comfort used. Her definition excludes anything beyond materialism. Thus, scientists who ascribe to this definition exclude any conclusion that natural science cannot explain (mind, love, beauty, design, reason).

Kelly mocked Comfort’s argument that one’s conscience guides them by suggesting that no one ever need to be taught anything if a conscience is real. The atheists suggested that Comfort is only a Christian because of his culture. If he’d been born in India, they claim, he’d be Hindu. But the search for something higher than ourselves is a powerful argument for the existence of God. He placed within each of us the desire to worship Him. Christianity is a record of this, and other world religions are misguided efforts to fill the need for Christ and His forgiveness of sin.

The only one of her other comments that is even worth disputing is her claim that, “Hitler was a devout Catholic.” This is absolute rubbish. Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot were all atheist mass murderers, who were powerfully influenced by the anti-Christian conclusions of Darwinism.

Wednesday, May 9, 2007


I just watched the ABCNEWS.com internet version of the debate between the Christians and the atheists. Dishearteningly, the atheists won the debate...not because they are right, but because Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron made a bold claim (We will prove, scientifically, beyond a shadow of doubt that there is a God without resorting to faith) and delivered little philosophical proof.

Overall, the debate was amateurish since neither side was particularly compelling. The Comfort/Cameron duo were passionate and I could resonate with their message. Having said this they should have spent some time reading the materialistic diatribes of the talk.origins.com propaganda so they would be prepared to answer the atheists. In the Art of War, Sun Tzu said:

So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will win hundred times in hundred battles. If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you win one and lose the next. If you do not know yourself or our enemy, you will always lose.

Comfort/Cameron failed to know what the atheists were going to defend with, and they failed to deliver on their bold claim. It is a bold claim that has been debated since...before the time of Noah. Unsurprisingly, they could not deliver.

While my public speaking skills are unpolished and naive, I wish the passionate Christian duo would have asked me for some tips on where to look for information to present. They could have checked out my blog favorites for VOLUMES of information regarding the scientific evidence that supports scripture. They lost the debate before it started since their bold claim needed a starting point. The atheist team pointed this out on a particularly embarrassing exchange for the Christians when they said something like, "You promised scientific evidence, but you said that God is outside of time and the universe. You broke your own rules. We believe the universe is infinite, you believe that God is infinite" Cameron/Comfort sat stunned for a few seconds before Cameron repeated that "...we believe..." to which the atheists responded, "Well, we believe..." It was appalling to me that when the moderator asked Cameron/Comfort if they would like to respond to the atheists, both men looked perplexed and unwilling to engage in debate by saying simply, "I think people can figure it out."

I loved their passion, but I was disappointed with the results.

In the next post, I'll argue against the atheist's claims.


A more qualified debater for the Christians would have been the much-maligned and wrongfully imprisoned Kent Hovind. His powerful logic and experience as a debater would have benefited the Christian side of the debate. His brash demeanor and keen reasoning would have put the atheists in their place.

Tuesday, May 8, 2007

It depends

Is it okay to lie (say something that you know to be untrue) if you think the lie will save your life?

Post your comments using sound reasoning and Bible references if possible.

Monday, May 7, 2007

The gift of trouble

Being the perfectly organized person that I am, I've crammed my read-through-the-Bible-in-a-year daily devotions into 16 months...and counting. Renee and I started this together on January 1, 2006, and after about a week of looking back and forth for the the Bible, I decided to let her use the NIV version of our One Year Bile, and I picked up the Living Bible translation. It read very easy, but I've always got in the back of my mind as I read, "I wonder what the REAL Bible says in this passage."

So, part of the reading for today...I mean December 11 was Amos 4. God says, " 'I sent you hunger, but it did no good; you still would not return to me. I ruined your crops...I sent a blight and mildew on your farms and your vineyards; the locusts ate your figs and olive trees. And still you would not return to me...I sent you plagues...I killed your lads in war and drove away your horses...And yet you refused to come. I destroyed some of your cities...And still you won't return to me', says the Lord."

I know that sometimes, I get caught in the trap that if life is comfortable, then I must be doing what God wants. This passage just really struck me for some reason this morning that God gave them trouble in an effort to renew his relationship with his people. The NIV translation of Amos 4:6 says, "I gave you empty stomachs..."

I hope our country, people, church can return to God without needing the gift of trouble to turn our hearts.

Friday, May 4, 2007

The fool says...

The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God". Psalm 14:1

Yet on ABC News next week a pair of atheists will debate with Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort whether the existence of God is a fact or not. It's supposed to be broadcast at 1PM Central and 10:30 PM Central.

I'm not sure what either side will say, but check back here next Thursday after watching it to make your comments (and read mine!). It wouldn't hurt to pray for the Christian pair as they prepare a cogent argument.

Since ABC is on the boycott list (Via Walt Disney, who owns it) the writer of this blog does not recommend that you support any of their sponsors during this broadcast, but it should be interesting to watch.

Even if you do not decide to watch, think of the people (co-workers, classmates, friends...) around you who have been deceived by the evolutionary mantra that there is no scientific need for God. And then check back here for postings and the links at the bottom that will help equip you to counter the dogmatic evolutionary mantra.

Thursday, May 3, 2007


We have had to make some changes in our lives recently. "Had to" may be too strong a phrase except that we feel strongly about this issue, and we have chosen to make some changes. They have not been burdensome, but they are obvious nonetheless.

We bought the Planned Parenthood boycott list from www.fightpp.org. For those who do not know, Planned Parenthood is the world's largest supporter of abortion. The list is filled with corporations that sponsor the most effective killing machine in history, and we have chosen not to purchase their products anymore. Not only that, but we have even written their executives letters to let them know that this movement is going to have an impact on their sales. I would encourage everyone to at least check into the boycott and measure its effectiveness for yourselves.

The hardest change has been finding competing products to Johnson and Johnson (since they are on the list) since they produce SO MUCH stuff. Perhaps this bit of inconvenience will help to curb our connection to the material world and help us fight the acidic effects of materialism.

FYI...this is the first posting on the issue of abortion of what promises to be a common theme here. The best thing about having one's own blog - I can write about whatever I want. :-)


So what is prayer?

National Day of Prayer

In 1988, president Reagan instituted the first Thursday in May as the National Day of Prayer. So what does that mean for us, as Americans? as Christians? Is this a day for us to get out our "wish lists" and begin to ask away? Does God set aside His providential responsibilities on the first Thursday of May to more easily listen to the extra supplications made from the United States? Perhaps, it is simply a reminder of the words in James 1:

16 Don't be deceived, my dear brothers. 17 Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.

Let's all be thankful in our prayers today as we remember that the Creator of the universe has opened a means of communication with us.

Wednesday, May 2, 2007

First post

Where should I start? The blog's name: 4GiVn.

I hope through all my posts that any visitors will not perceive me to think I am better or "looking down" on anyone. I am simply a sinner that has been forgiven by the grace of God through the sacrifice of Jesus.

And maybe through it all some visitors will be encouraged to grow in their faith.

Be sure to check out my grandmother's blog for some brilliant poetry and keen insight.