Atheists believe in miracles

Don Batten’s article “Five atheist miracles” summarizes the unexplainable positions held by atheists in spite of evidence to the contrary.

Share Button

Critique and Clarification of the FLT and Supernatural Creation of the Universe argument

The following is a critique by Dave Matson of the first thermodynamic law debate.
Dave Matson (DM) critique: One problem with your phrasing of the 1st law of thermodynamics is that your phrasing suggests that there are other means by which energy might be created. That thought is not a part of the 1st law, and any phrasing that suggests as much is misleading.

Pat Briney (PRB) response: The phrasing “natural means” was included to emphasize the context of the first law of thermodynamics (FLT) because without it, some asserted incorrectly, that based on this law, energy could not be created by supernatural means. This assertion is a misapplication of the FLT. The FLT does not describe events outside of natural phenomena, I use this phrase to emphasize and to clarify for others that the FLT applies only to natural phenomena.

DM critique: The second problem is that the 1st law deals with the conservation of energy. It says Continue Reading

Share Button
Filed Under: All

Briney quotes

 

Posted by Patrick Briney, Ph.D. • March 14, 2013 • Creation Insights Publication • http://creationinsights.org

  • Whereas the science of biology describes and explains physical life, revelation of the Bible describes and explains spiritual life.
  • Science without the Bible is like a runaway bulldozer without brakes. It gets the job done, but with reckless abandon.
  • Science is man’s method of discovering God’s design in creation.
  • Science is man’s method of discovering God in creation.
  • Just as the Bible is not a science textbook, Science is not a religious revelation.
  • Science and the Bible are compatible. It’s the people that are incompatible.
  • The presumption of atheism and naturalism in science is just that… a presumption, nothing more.
  • The presumption of naturalism has a strangle hold on the scientific community preventing rational thought to follow the evidence where ever it leads.
  • The community of scientists need to update the dark age presumption of atheism now that we have scientific evidence indicating there is a God.
  • “Evolution is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of links not seen.”—Duane Gish
Share Button
Filed Under: All

Arrogant science

The ability to follow evidence where ever it leads requires humble intelligence. One must not be so arrogant as to think that they know the conclusion before they find the evidence. Closed-minded scientists cannot see that which they do not want to see. They prejudice their interpretations with preclusions and suffer from interpretive myopia. They willingly blind themselves. They disqualify themselves from being capable of offering interpretive objectivity. Their conclusions are not to be trusted.

Atheistic science forces atheistic conclusions regardless of the evidence. In contrast, a creation scientist can offer interpretations that conform to laws and forces predicted by design and acknowledge a supernatural origin of those governing forces.

Steven Weinberg is a good example of how some intelligent men fail the test of objectivity and humility. Arrogant science is bad science.

American physicist Steven Weinberg was awarded the 1979 Nobel Prize in physics. In 1999, he spoke to the Conference on Cosmic Design, hosted by the American Association for the Advancement of Science:
“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion… I learned that the aim of this conference is to have a constructive dialogue between science and religion. I am all in favor of a dialogue between science and religion, but not a constructive dialogue. One of the great achievements of science has been, if not to make it impossible for intelligent people to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious. We should not retreat from this accomplishment.”

Share Button

Filling gaps of ignorance

Empirical evidence derived by scientific investigation of the physical world is convincing many, especially scientists, that the supernatural origin of the universe, life, and the diverse variety of species best explains their existences.

Is it possible to propose a credible, scientific conclusion for supernatural origins based on physical evidence gathered from the natural universe?

Of course it is. When the facts and laws of science show that the natural properties of the material world are incapable of producing the results we observe, the logical conclusion is to suggest a supernatural cause.

Critics accuse such a conclusion as a cop out for intellectual laziness and a lack of motivation to pursue difficult discoveries. They say using God to fill in the gaps of the unknown is a threat to future scientific exploration. God, they argue, is invoked unnecessarily to compensate for ignorance.

This is unwarranted criticism of creation science. Current evidence for a supernatural explanation of origins is not based on the absence of evidence or of understanding. It is based on an understanding of facts and laws that show us the limitations of energy and matter. It is the understanding of these things that leads to the logical conclusion that the origin of the universe, life, and species is best explained as the result of supernatural cause.

On the other hand, to insist that only natural origin models Continue Reading

Share Button

Rational explanation for the origin of life

What does life have that nonlife does not? On a cellular level, the difference is in the organization of its components. A living cell can acquire nutrients from its environment, catabolize those nutrients for energy and for more basic components and then synthesize those components into components it needs to continue the process of metabolism. An interruption of the metabolic pathways leads to death of the cell. However, putting living cells in suspended animation (by means such as quick freezing) maintains the organization of the chemical pathways and the components so that living cells in this condition can be thawed and renew their life processes.

The question of the origin of life is: how did these required life components and their organization come to be in the first place? Other than wishful mathematical models and speculative hypotheses, there are no real world examples or evidence that an organized system of components could spontaneously evolve. At best, scientists are able to reprogram and manipulate what is already in the cell, but how to start life eludes them. If intelligent men with sophisticated equipment and with carefully designed and controlled experiments cannot produce life in the laboratory, the claim that life spontaneously evolved from lifeless molecules defies physical laws and is absurd. The only rational explanation of the evidence and understanding of life is that life originated by creative design. There must be an intelligent Creator.

Share Button

Why I reject evolution

From the tract, “Why I rejected evolution” by Dr. Patrick Briney.

As an atheist, I believed in evolution as fact. It was the only explanation for existence. But after attending a lecture on creation science, I began to rethink the question of origins. The speaker had pointed out several things that I knew were true, but I never considered the implications. He also said some things I had not been told about in class. Subsequently, I began to doubt evolution, distrust teachers of evolution, and wonder what else I had not been told. Eventually, I became a Christian and a believer in the Genesis account of creation. Let me share with you some of the things that I believe will convince anyone who looks honestly into the subject of origins.

Evidence for Supernatural Origin by Design

Charles Thaxton of Charles University in Prague wrote that evidence for design is reasonable because, “In ordinary life we distinguish natural from intelligent causes all the time—when Continue Reading

Share Button

Creation Memory Verses

  1. Genesis 1:1  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
  2. Genesis 1:2  And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
  3. Genesis 1:3  And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
  4. Genesis 1:4  And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
  5. Genesis 1:5  And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
  6. Genesis 1:21  And God created great Continue Reading
Share Button

Kingfisher, OK creation conference

kingfisher-VBC card

Dr. Briney presenting intelligent design evidence for creation.Great conference in Kingfisher, OK.

Two groups of home schoolers met with Dr. Briney in the mornings for Q & A.

Share Button

Can God be known personally?

The following is an answer to a question sent to Dr. Briney.

  1. Life has as much meaning as one desires to put into it. If you desire a fulfilled life, Jesus offers the abundant life. In John 10:10, Jesus says, “The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.” Some choose to dismay about the pointlessness of their lives and others choose to make a point with their lives. Thus, in any oversimplified way of saying it: there are sad people in the world and happy people. For many, it is a choice. For others, there may be a medical problem.
  2. Logical and rational conclusions lead us to truth. Evidence can help individuals who live by empiricism come to the same conclusion as those who live by faith alone. Different people require Continue Reading
Share Button