Now that the inadequate views of the nature of truth have been examined, it remains to state an adequate view. Truth is what corresponds to its referent. Truth about reality is what corresponds to the way things really are. Truth is "telling it like it is." This correspondence applies to abstract realities as well as actual ones. There are mathematical truths. There are also truths about ideas. In each case there is a reality and truth accurately expresses it.
Falsehood, then, is what does not correspond. It tells it like it is not, misrepresenting the way things are. The intent behind the statement is irrelevant. If it lacks proper correspondence, it is false.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fpmu42g6mDs
Tuesday, September 26, 2017
Design without a designer
Darwin grew up in an England that acknowledge a biblical worldview. When he wrote On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, he had witnessed a world fall of death and disease. How could this be the world created by the God of the Bible? Evolutionary ideas offered people an alternative to a supernatural Creator. Life may appear to be designed but it is just a product of random changes over millions of years of earth history. This offered people a "scientific" means to reject God and believe in a naturalistic view of the universe. Micheal Denton suggests that the chief impact of Darwin's idea was to make atheism possible and respectable in light of the evidence for a Designer. Darwin's ideas fostered an environment where God was no longer needed-nature was all that was necessary. Darwin's ideas ushered in a pagan era that is now reaching a critical point. The idea that the appearance of design suggests a designer became an invalid argument in the eyes of evolutionists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5Mldp3f5iU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5Mldp3f5iU
Thursday, September 21, 2017
Take a walk in the woods
Do you like nature? Have you walked in a wooded area and fall in love the trees and grass?
The best art is not painted but it is nature.
The public schools teaches that random energy built everything in nature without God.
I will go really deep with you.
According to the most-widely accepted theory of evolution today, the sole mechanism for producing evolution is that of random mutation combined with natural selection. Mutations are random changes in genetic systems. Natural selection is considered by evolutionists to be a sort of sieve, which retains the "good" mutations and allows the others to pass away.
Since random changes in ordered systems almost always will decrease the amount of order in those systems, nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them. Nevertheless, the evolutionist insists that each complex organism in the world today has arisen by a long string of gradually accumulated good mutations preserved by natural selection. No one has ever actually observed a genuine mutation occurring in the natural environment which was beneficial (that is, adding useful genetic information to an existing genetic code), and therefore, retained by the selection process. For some reason, however, the idea has a certain persuasive quality about it and seems eminently reasonable to many people—until it is examined quantitatively, that is!
For example, consider a very simple putative organism composed of only 200 integrated and functioning parts, and the problem of deriving that organism by this type of process. The system presumably must have started with only one part and then gradually built itself up over many generations into its 200-part organization. The developing organism, at each successive stage, must itself be integrated and functioning in its environment in order to survive until the next stage. Each successive stage, of course, becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one, since it is far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up. A four-component integrated system can more easily "mutate" (that is, somehow suddenly change) into a three-component system (or even a four-component non-functioning system) than into a five-component integrated system. If, at any step in the chain, the system mutates "downward," then it is either destroyed altogether or else moves backward, in an evolutionary sense.
Therefore, the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires, at least, 200 successive, successful such "mutations," each of which is highly unlikely. Even evolutionists recognize that true mutations are very rare, and beneficial mutations are extremely rare—not more than one out of a thousand mutations are beneficial, at the very most.
But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half. Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)200, or one chance out of 1060. The number 1060, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts."
The evolutionist might react by saying that even though any one such mutating organism might not be successful, surely some around the world would be, especially in the 10 billion years (or 1018 seconds) of assumed earth history. Therefore, let us imagine that every one of the earth's 1014 square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 109) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this). Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try. In 1018 seconds, there can, therefore, be 1018/102, or 1016, trials by each mutating system. Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 1014 (109) (1016), or 1039 attempts. Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 1060, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 1039 attempts might be successful is only one out of 1060/1039, or 1021.
All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion. What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible!
The best art is not painted but it is nature.
The public schools teaches that random energy built everything in nature without God.
I will go really deep with you.
According to the most-widely accepted theory of evolution today, the sole mechanism for producing evolution is that of random mutation combined with natural selection. Mutations are random changes in genetic systems. Natural selection is considered by evolutionists to be a sort of sieve, which retains the "good" mutations and allows the others to pass away.
Since random changes in ordered systems almost always will decrease the amount of order in those systems, nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them. Nevertheless, the evolutionist insists that each complex organism in the world today has arisen by a long string of gradually accumulated good mutations preserved by natural selection. No one has ever actually observed a genuine mutation occurring in the natural environment which was beneficial (that is, adding useful genetic information to an existing genetic code), and therefore, retained by the selection process. For some reason, however, the idea has a certain persuasive quality about it and seems eminently reasonable to many people—until it is examined quantitatively, that is!
For example, consider a very simple putative organism composed of only 200 integrated and functioning parts, and the problem of deriving that organism by this type of process. The system presumably must have started with only one part and then gradually built itself up over many generations into its 200-part organization. The developing organism, at each successive stage, must itself be integrated and functioning in its environment in order to survive until the next stage. Each successive stage, of course, becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one, since it is far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up. A four-component integrated system can more easily "mutate" (that is, somehow suddenly change) into a three-component system (or even a four-component non-functioning system) than into a five-component integrated system. If, at any step in the chain, the system mutates "downward," then it is either destroyed altogether or else moves backward, in an evolutionary sense.
Therefore, the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires, at least, 200 successive, successful such "mutations," each of which is highly unlikely. Even evolutionists recognize that true mutations are very rare, and beneficial mutations are extremely rare—not more than one out of a thousand mutations are beneficial, at the very most.
But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half. Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)200, or one chance out of 1060. The number 1060, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts."
The evolutionist might react by saying that even though any one such mutating organism might not be successful, surely some around the world would be, especially in the 10 billion years (or 1018 seconds) of assumed earth history. Therefore, let us imagine that every one of the earth's 1014 square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 109) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this). Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try. In 1018 seconds, there can, therefore, be 1018/102, or 1016, trials by each mutating system. Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 1014 (109) (1016), or 1039 attempts. Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 1060, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 1039 attempts might be successful is only one out of 1060/1039, or 1021.
All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion. What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible!
Hebrews 11:3
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
Thursday, September 14, 2017
Truth is not "what feels good"
The popular subjective view is truth gives a satisfying feeling, and error feels bad. Truth is found in our subjective feelings. Many mystics and new age enthusiasts hold versions of this faulty view, though it also has a strong influence among some experimentally oriented Christian groups.
It is evident that bad news can be true. But if what feels good is always true, then we would not have to believe anything unpleasant. Bad report cards do not make a student feel good, but the student refuses to believe them at his or her academic peril. They are true. Feelings are also relative to individual personalities. What feels good to one may feel bad to another. If so, then truth would be highly relative. But, as will be seen in some detail below, truth cannot be relative.
Even if truth makes us feel good-at least in the long-this does not mean what feels good is true. The nature of truth does not depend on the result of truth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQITYLg74D8&t=621s
It is evident that bad news can be true. But if what feels good is always true, then we would not have to believe anything unpleasant. Bad report cards do not make a student feel good, but the student refuses to believe them at his or her academic peril. They are true. Feelings are also relative to individual personalities. What feels good to one may feel bad to another. If so, then truth would be highly relative. But, as will be seen in some detail below, truth cannot be relative.
Even if truth makes us feel good-at least in the long-this does not mean what feels good is true. The nature of truth does not depend on the result of truth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQITYLg74D8&t=621s
Darwin's illegitimate brainchild
The idea of natural selection was published well before Darwin wrote Origin of Species. Darwin was most likely exposed to the idea in his days as a student in Edinburgh, and those ideas were integrated with the information gathered on his Beagle voyage. Several scholars have suggested that Darwin borrowed ideas from the works of many of his predecessors and contemporaries. It is suggested that Darwin failed to give credit to Edward Blyth for seminal ideas because Blyth was a "special creationist" who viewed natural selection in light of selecting among preexisting traits. Darwin is credited with the idea of evolution by natural selection, but it remains impotent in light of modern genetic concepts of information.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y6OWI8fN-M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y6OWI8fN-M
It is there
We live in a world that nothing is guaranteed. Your beautiful wife could die tomorrow. Your job could be cut. Your house could be no more after a fire. There is a lack of hope in this world.
Mankind help in relationships and all of them can be cut off. The job that you love can be lost. The house could be flooded in a storm.
The world is becoming a junk yard of rotten food and the world promote that there is no God.
People wonder will people kill themselves.
There are proof of God and science is on God's side so you can read my blog on science for more information.
God is real and when a person believes in Jesus, then that person will remain strong in times of trouble which we live in. It is true that we can't see God but creation is more complex than your phone so God is real. I have not seen God face to face but it is obvious that He is real.
God loved the people that trusted and believed in Him in the past. He is content when a person surrenders their live to Him.
This world is not all there is because eternity is next. A person either go to heaven or hell.
One sin leads to hell but thru the mercy of Jesus on the cross. A person can repent from their sins and go to heaven.
Mankind help in relationships and all of them can be cut off. The job that you love can be lost. The house could be flooded in a storm.
The world is becoming a junk yard of rotten food and the world promote that there is no God.
People wonder will people kill themselves.
There are proof of God and science is on God's side so you can read my blog on science for more information.
God is real and when a person believes in Jesus, then that person will remain strong in times of trouble which we live in. It is true that we can't see God but creation is more complex than your phone so God is real. I have not seen God face to face but it is obvious that He is real.
God loved the people that trusted and believed in Him in the past. He is content when a person surrenders their live to Him.
This world is not all there is because eternity is next. A person either go to heaven or hell.
One sin leads to hell but thru the mercy of Jesus on the cross. A person can repent from their sins and go to heaven.
Hebrews 11:1-2
Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)