Tag: Troy Lacey

  • Christians Say the Darnedest Things: Atheistic Humanism to Blame for ALL the World’s Ills

    atheists

    By Troy Lacey, Ignorance in Genesis

    There are several direct or indirect outcomes of all the ills that evolutionary and/or atheistic humanism has brought upon society. Many of these existed long before evolutionary thought pervaded much of society but all have increased dramatically since 1859 (after the publication of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species) and even more so by 1871 (after the publication of Darwin’s The Descent of Man). Just a few are listed below:

    • Racism
    • Genocide
    • Eugenics
    • Abortion
    • Euthanasia
    • Moral relativism
    • Communism
    • Atheism
    • Satanism
    • Homosexuality
    • Transgenderism
    • Collapse of traditional marriage
    • Suicide
    • Addiction (drugs/alcohol)
    • Gambling
    • Debt
    • Prostitution
    • Pornography
    • Pedophilia
    • Human trafficking

    [JFC! Are humanists to blame for everything?]

    What makes this list so lengthy is that the rationale for these things is often pinned to the belief that humans evolved via natural processes and that there are no absolute truths, ethics, or morality. In other words, once humanity decided to “shake off the shackles of religion,” they started down an inexorable path to all manner of sin.

    ….

    Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without true Christianity (as well as theism, deism, polytheism, and other supernatural beliefs, despite their deficits), asserts humanity’s ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity. Atheistic humanist thought is the idea that when people are unshackled from religion and largely left free to pursue their own interests and goals, think for themselves, develop and hone their abilities, and operate in a social setting that promotes liberty, the number of beneficial discoveries and accomplishments increases and humanity moves further toward the goal of greater self-understanding, better laws, better institutions, and a good life.

    ….

    At first, many of these “commitments” seem to borrow heavily from Christianity. Empathy, humility, responsibility, and altruism are core Christian values based on Scripture—especially the teachings of Christ and his apostles. But in the humanist religion, they are all based on introspection and have no real foundation or objective basis. Ultimately, humanists of all stripes decide for themselves what is right and wrong. The overarching question is this: Can humanity be good without God?

    ….

    Moral relativism, a main component of humanistic beliefs, permeates our culture. We see the worship of idols (the god of self), rampant sexual sin of all types, people redefining moral absolutes (which ultimately come from Scripture) so that the death of infants and the elderly is seen as good, and the right to life is viewed as antiquated at best or evil at worst. Even biological reality is denied as people decide to base their gender on what they perceive it to be. Feelings are elevated above truth, indeed, and are now classified as determining truth. Even the meanings of words are twisted to accommodate such views. Pedophiles are rebranded as “minor-attracted persons,” and the murder of children is termed as removing a “clump of cells.”

    ….

    Truly, as this article has attempted to illustrate, the atheistic, evolutionary humanist mindset is one that “loves death.” God cannot tolerate such evil as the killing of people made in his image (especially the most innocent and vulnerable) indefinitely. The only solution to this world’s fascination with death is forsaking sin, repenting, and trusting in Christ.

    Bruce Gerencser, 69, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 48 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.

    Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.

    You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.

  • Do Young Earth Creationists Consider All the Evidence?

    creationism ken ham

    Troy Lacey, a writer for Answers in Genesis, recently wrote an article titled Answering Atheists. Lame from start to finish, Lacey tries to deconstruct quotes from Bill Nye, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Richard Dawkins. (These men, by the way, are not top-shelf atheists. Lacey might want to engage atheists who are schooled in Christian theology and dogma.)

    Lacey states:

    With the Bible as our starting point, we can look at the natural laws that God created, such as laws of thermodynamics and the law of biogenesis, and we can examine whether natural selection and mutation could possibly account for molecules-to-man evolution. They can’t. Instead, they clearly show the Creator (Romans 1:18–20).

    Far from refusing to look at any evidence, creationists carefully examine it all. Creationist articles, books, and museums regularly cite the specific evolutionary arguments and then test them using the most rigorous scientific and philosophical tools available. We desperately want to know the truth so we can speak accurately about the Creator and his handiwork. We have no fears where the evidence will lead because we know it all points to God’s glory.

    Oh, the lies young earth creationists tell. Do creationists really “carefully examine it [evidence] all?” Do they “desperately want to know the truth?” Of course not. Most young earth creationists are presuppositionalists. Creationists don’t start with evidence, they start with the following presuppositions:

    • The Protestant Bible is the inspired, inerrant, and infallible Word of God
    • The one True God is the triune God of the Bible
    • God created the earth in six literal twenty-four-hour days, 6,028 years ago
    • God destroyed the human race, save eight people, with a worldwide flood

    I could add more Evangelical presuppositions, but these will suffice for now. Instead of weighing the evidence for these claims, they presuppose that they are true. Granted, none of us is free of presuppositions, We should do everything we can to limit our presuppositions. Evangelicals, on the other hand, have presuppositions upon presuppositions. These presuppositions keep them from seeing, knowing, and understanding the truth. And it is for this reason that it is nearly impossible to argue/debate Evangelical apologists. Presuppositions are faith claims that are impervious to falsification. Either you believe them to be true, or you don’t.

    Lacey lives in a bubble where he genuinely believes that creationists are “using the most rigorous scientific and philosophical tools available.” He says that creationists do not “fear where the evidence will lead.” Why? Here comes another presupposition: we know it all [all evidence] points to God’s glory. Does all evidence point to God’s glory? Of course not. This is a faith claim.

    Long before we can discuss “creationism,” we must first debate the claims Evangelicals make for the existence of God and the supernatural nature of the Bible. Lacey wants atheists to take his word for these claims. Not going to happen. Most atheists are rationalists and skeptics. We expect Evangelical apologists to provide some sort of evidence for their claims. Lacey claims Evangelicals like him examine and test every claim made by scientists. Is this a true claim? If yes, then why are so few creationist scientists published in scientific journals; not creationist or Evangelical journals, but well-respected science journals? Cue claims of persecution or bias. That’s how Evangelicals explain their overwhelming lack of publication in non-sectarian science journals. “The evil evolutionists are out to get us,” Evangelicals claim. However, the more likely explanation is that their claims lack scientific standing, and no reputable journal is going to give space for nonsense to be published.

    Bruce Gerencser, 69, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 48 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.

    Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.

    You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.

  • Christians Say the Darnedest Things: Were There Dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?

    dinosaurs on the ark
    Cartoon by Mike Peters

    People often wonder how all of the animals could have fit on the ark. Often, “bathtub arks” are loaded down with various species of animals, rather than the biblical kind, which is approximately at the family level of biological classification. Noah didn’t need to bring lions, leopards, and tigers onto the ark, just a single pair from the cat kind. We see so many illustrations of large creatures packed tightly into a little boat. But this image is inaccurate too. Noah’s ark was so much larger than it is usually depicted, and many of the animals were probably smaller than are shown in popular pictures.

    But the biggest hurdle people have when they see any of our displays of the ark (or visit the Ark Encounter) is seeing dinosaurs depicted on the ark (or in stalls in the Ark Encounter). Due to evolutionary indoctrination, many people can’t picture man living alongside dinosaurs, or if they do, they think of the Jurassic Park/World movies and view all dinosaurs as wanting to trample or eat people. Even if they overcome or set aside this stumbling block, we still get questions of how dinosaurs could even fit on the ark, particularly when considering the massive dinosaurs, especially the sauropods. Other oft-cited “problems” with dinosaurs on the ark are feeding the herbivores the massive amounts of vegetation that the adults eat, feeding the carnivorous ones (and avoiding being eaten by them), and cleaning up after them.

    It makes more sense to think that God would have sent to Noah juveniles (or sub-adults) or smaller varieties within the same kind. Consider the following advantages to bringing juveniles or smaller versions of a creature: they take up less space, they eat less, they create less waste, they are often more docile and easier to manage, they are generally less susceptible to injury, and they would have more time to reproduce after the flood. And considering this last point, wasn’t that the end goal of bringing them on board the ark: to keep them alive and to ensure that they would “be fruitful and multiply on the earth” (Genesis 8:17)? Bringing a full-sized dinosaur that only had a few years left and/or was past its reproductive prime seems illogical and wasteful. Neither of those is characteristic of God.

    Regarding carnivorous activity, we know from the fossil record (most of which is a testimony of the worldwide, globe-covering flood) that some animals were carnivores in the post-fall/pre-flood world. But even if carnivory was prevalent in the late pre-flood world, it is still possible the animals that God sent did not eat meat or were omnivores that could have survived for one year without meat. There have been modern examples of animals normally considered to be carnivores that refused to eat meat, such as the lion known as Little Tyke. Additionally during times of war or natural disaster when meat was unobtainable, zoos and wildlife parks have utilized meat substitutes1 like nuts, peanut butter, coconuts, beans, soy, and other legumes as their protein-source feed for the animals.2

    However, if some of the ark’s animals did eat meat, there are several methods of preserving or supplying their food. Meat can be preserved through drying, smoking, salting, or pickling. Certain fish can pack themselves in mud and survive for years without water—these could have been stored on the ark. Noah may have also brought mealworms and other insects onto the ark as food, and these can be bred for both carnivores and insectivores, providing even necessary amino acids, like taurine. Cricket or grasshopper flour could be baked into breads, as could the ground seeds of gourds. And plants like amaranth and quinoa yield high protein feed. Yeast paste and dried seaweed also contain high amounts of protein and taurine, so Noah quite likely had many options available to him. And occasionally in desperate times, like during the Nazi siege of Leningrad in 1941, even obligate carnivores (in this case, a tiger) have switched to vegetarian diets and survived for several years.

    For the plant-eating dinosaurs, the animals brought on board could have eaten compressed hay, other dried grasses, dried vegetables, seeds and grains, legumes, etc. Another factor that may have reduced food consumption for both vegetarian and carnivorous dinosaurs is that they went into a state of hibernation/brumation or torpor. Many reptiles today begin to eat less, reduce their metabolic rate drastically, and then “sleep” for long periods of time when the weather gets a little cooler, virtually eating nothing and waking up only for brief periods to drink before reentering brumation. Often the best conditions for this state are humidity, temperatures between 50° and 68° F (10° and 20° C), and low-light conditions. The outside weather at the time of the flood (rainy and thus likely cool) combined with the lower-light interior compartments of the ark would make ideal hibernation/brumation conditions on the ark. If any of the dinosaurs and other reptiles and amphibians went into brumation, then food requirements would have been severely reduced.

    — Troy Lacey, Answers in Genesis, Dinosaurs on the Ark: How It Was Possible, April 28, 2021

    Bruce Gerencser, 69, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 48 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.

    Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.

    You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.

  • Christians Say the Darnedest Things: Most Atheists Believe in the Supernatural

    wtf

    During a UK-based study, Understanding Unbelief, atheists and agnostics from various countries, including Brazil, China, Denmark, Japan, the United States, and the United Kingdom were interviewed. In the New Scientist overview of the study, they highlighted that the majority of atheists (71%) and agnostics (92%) believed in “at least one supernatural phenomenon or entity,” the most common being a belief in “fate” (“significant life events are meant to be” and “underlying forces of good and evil” exist), but astrology, reincarnation, and karma all made the list as well.

    For some atheists/agnostics, it is easy to mix certain aspects of different religions into their worldview. For example, over 8% of Japanese respondents and 1% of Chinese respondents identified themselves as Buddhists. In most forms of Buddhism, there is no personal God or gods, and, ultimately, Buddhism teaches that any “god idea” has its origin in fear, which needs to be mastered and put away by meditation, and that belief in God is not necessary to achieve enlightenment. Buddhism could best be described as non-theistic: that if there are any gods, they don’t matter.

    But for most, it is difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile atheism or agnosticism with a religion that believes in God—like Christianity. Nevertheless, atheists and agnostics still borrow many aspects from a biblical worldview—whether they realize it or not. For example, logic, truth, knowledge, morality, and science—which are predicated on the Bible being true—do not come from a materialistic and naturalistic view of things. Atheists and agnostics often agree that logic, truth, morality, and so on exist, but it cannot be justified in their worldview.

    ….

    Like everyone, atheists and agnostics long for meaning, purpose, and hope. After all, God has written eternity on their hearts (Ecclesiastes 3:11), so they know there must be more to this life than what we can see. But their worldview does not offer any ultimate meaning, purpose, or hope. In their worldview, when you die, you cease to exist. That’s it. The end. Or is it? If that were really true, then why do up to 25% of atheist and 35% of agnostic responses “agree” or “strongly agree” that reincarnation exists? And (even more surprisingly) why do up to 30% of atheists and agnostics “agree” or “strongly agree” that life after death exists? That certainly seems like a core-belief contradiction.

    Since atheists and agnostics know there is no ultimate meaning, purpose, or hope in that kind of outlook, what do many atheists and agnostics do to give themselves the very thing their worldview cannot supply? They add a (false) hope to their worldview: karma, astrology, fate, reincarnation—or many other things for which the study didn’t account. Each of these beliefs gives some idea that there is more to us and this life than just naturalism. That, somehow, our lives have some kind of cosmic purpose or meaning, and maybe, just maybe, there really is something beyond the here and now.

    ….

    But what these atheists and agnostics really need to do is acknowledge the bankruptcy of their worldview and ditch it! They need to give up a worldview that cannot give them what they truly long for and embrace the only one that can: a biblical worldview grounded in the reality of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

    Avery Foley and Troy Lacey, Answers in Genesis, Atheists: Believers in Fate, Reincarnation, and Karma?, August 6, 2019