Sign in or signup

5,304 active users!!Bandwidth
SATURDAY
NOV 18, 2017
Home
NewsSITE
Events & Blogs
New Audio & Video
BroadcastersNew Stuff!
Local & Church Finder
Webcast LIVE NOW!
Sermons by Bible
Sermons by Topic
Sermons by Speaker
Sermons by Date
Staff Picks
CommentsALL -27 min
Top Sermons
VideosPDFs
Daily Log
PhotosNew Stuff!
Stores
Online Bible
Hymnal
Daily Reading
Our Services
Submit Sermon
Members Only

Breaking News Home | All | Religion | Society | Tech | Choice | Fridays | SA Newsroom
FRONT PAGE  |  11/18/2017
Choice News THURSDAY, MAY 12, 2005  |  1 comments
Answers in Genesis Responds to a Listener Comment on SermonAudio


Click here to view the original comment and to listen to the audio for yourself!

Answers in Genesis Responds to a Listener Comment on SermonAudio

The following is a detailed response given by Answers in Genesis to specifically answer a comment left by a SermonAudio listener on an audio by Ken Ham. Click here to view the original comment and to listen to the audio for yourself! The original listener comments are in bold below.

First of all I want to say great sermon really!!

Thanks.

But one big point is left out and that is the assumption creationists have which is that the bible is all true. Why is there God? Because the bible says so and why is the bible the truth? Because it's the word of God. That's really just talking in circles.

Actually, we don't take that stance, we are presuppositional. We take as our axiom that God exist and that His Word, the Bible, is truth. From here, we let it explain the world. Here are a couple of articles that should help explain presuppositions a little better:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/missing.asp

Also, in the words of Jonathan Sarfati from this feedback:

No, but this is not our argument. Rather, it would be worth seeing this answer to the charge of circular reasoning. For one thing, the circle is easily broken; for another, the alleged circular reasoning is to show the self-consistency of our chosen axioms-the propositions of Scripture. All philosophical systems start with axioms (presuppositions), or unprovable propositions accepted as true, and deduce theorems from them. Therefore Christians should not be faulted for having axioms, as explained in Creation: 'where's the proof?'

So the question for any axiomatic system is whether it is self-consistent and is consistent with the real world. The self-consistency is explained above, and as will be seen, Christian axioms provide the basis for a coherent worldview, i.e. a thought map that can guide us throughout all aspects of life.

Non-Christian axioms fail these tests. E.g. science requires certain premises to work, and they are deductions from biblical axioms, as shown in this response, while atheism does not provide this justification from within its own framework. Also, atheism must postulate certain unprovable beliefs that go against observable science, as shown in this reply to an atheist.

Also, the Christian axioms provide a basis for objective morality. Please understand what I am saying here-not that atheists can't be moral but that they have no objective basis for this morality from within their own system, as explained in this response. The fanatical atheistic evolutionist Dawkins admits that our 'best impulses have no basis in nature.' So Dawkins makes a leap of faith to say that we should be 'anti-Darwinian when it comes to morality', that we should 'rebel' against our selfish genes, etc. But his own philosophy can't justify the 'shoulds'.

Besides that he keeps on asking whether or not we were thrown together by pure chance into full-blown people. That's not the point nor is it a valid point.

Why isn't it a valid point?

If you believe in evolution, you believe it started with the tiniest 1celled lifeform which came probably from plantlife which came from water.

Actually, it goes back much further in evolution. First, there was allegedly a point where nothing created a singularity and time began. Then this singularity expanded in a Big Bang. This is cosmic evolution. Then there was "geologic evolution" where the earth formed through the geologic time of an alleged billions of years.

Then non-life allegedly gave rise to life in an atmosphere without oxygen and definitely not water. This single celled life form allegedly built up with new information on its genome to get complex information for eyes, ears, nose, lungs, brain ,etc. then man allegedly finally arrived after billions of these information-gaining mutations.

So why is it so hard to believe that gradually things get more advanced through mutations (which Ken said to believe in even)?

First to clarify, Ken didn't say they get more advanced. Perhaps you are confusing natural selection with evolution. Natural selection was developed by a Christian named Ed Blyth about 25 years before Darwin and helps explain variation within the created kinds. Here is an excellent article on this:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter2.asp

Second, we don't observe life forms building up with new information. There are only a handful of disputable examples. For evolutionary advancement, there needs to be billions of these information gaining mutations. Things are moving in the wrong direction for gradual evolution. Please see:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i2/evolution_train.asp

And another thing he said, was that information doesn't come from matter, so our DNA can't just have become out of nothing so someone has to have put it there.

Yes. This has been shown by Dr Werner Gitt, a leading information theorist from Germany in his book 'In the Beginning was Information'. Here is an article on it:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v10/i2/information.asp

As the word DNA in itself says it's an acid what we make out of it is our interpretation so it's not like words in a language, for which the language has to be there before the words,

Not so. The language does have to be there otherwise the reading steps of the DNA transcription and translation of a gene would be impossible. Even the secular world understands this:

http://gslc.genetics.utah.edu/units/basics/transcribe/

It is often called the Universal Genetic Code.

it's a system purely material which we turn in to letters to help us understand it.

I agree that the letters used merely represent the proteins such as cytosine is C, etc. But one can't neglect that it is a code system. The arrangement of the C, G, A, and T, makes a code that is readable in the Universal Genetic Code. In the same way, when I write a sentence on a piece of paper with a pencil, it is purely material - graphite. Yet, it has a meaning, grammar, syntax, etc where those speaking English (okay American English :) can understand it.

The same type of information transfer can be done with other languages systems such as Chinese, Morse code and even binary (computer language). There is a sender and a receiver of information and a code by which to interpret what is sent. I highly suggest you get and read the book 'In the Beginning was information'.

Even the analogy of the language was completely false because someone doesn't and can't even create a language it's an intersubjctive thing

Then were does language come from? Men have developed many computer languages such as Fortran, Pascal, C++, etc. I would expect that men, who are made in the image of God, could develop a language.

After all, God created Adam with a programmed language in Genesis 1. Also, God divided the earth with a language barrier at the Tower of Babel. So it is logical that God was the one responsible for the language used for DNA. It is not a problem for Bible believers to understand that God created this complex code used in DNA.

Bodie Hodge
Answers in Genesis


CLICK HERE to Read Entire Article
www.sermonaudio.com

Was Darwin Right? Part 2
  START  
  Recommended sermons | more..
•  Genesis: Reclaiming Culture • Ken Ham | 5/22/2003
•  Was Darwin Right? Part 2Dr. Terry Mortenson | 1/16/2009
•  Was Darwin Right? Part 1Dr. Terry Mortenson | 1/15/2009
•  Six Creation Days: Rejected • Ken Ham | 11/27/2009

   03/14/15  |  Another One Bites the Dust • 4 comments
   03/11/15  |  God Doesn't Want Matt Chandler to be Your Pastor • 21 comments
   01/08/14  |  Christian Post: Warning, this article may offend many Christians • 93 comments
   01/01/14  |  Michelle Obama praises lesbian TV anchor • 18 comments
   12/29/13  |  U.S. Slams 'Conservative Gender Norms' • 377 comments
MORE RELATED ( ) NEWS | MORE..
   11/13/17  |  Children losing the ability to hold a conversation because of... • 13 comments
   11/11/17  |  Ex-Facebook president admits he helped build a monster • 42 comments
   11/09/17  |  Special Report: Pastors Appreciation Luncheon, Greenville • 2 comments
   11/06/17  |  SermonAudio Tip: SermonAudio iPhone + iPad Edition v4.4.3! • 117 comments
   11/05/17  |  Deadliest Church Shooting in American History Kills At Least 26 • 45 comments
OTHER CHOICE NEWS | MORE..
   11/17/17  |  Feedback Friday for 11-17-17 • 2 comments
   11/17/17  |  SermonAudio Tip: Say Hello To Our SermonAudio Android TV Edition!
   11/10/17  |  Feedback Friday for 11-10-17
   11/09/17  |  Pastors Appreciation Luncheon, Greenville • 2 comments
   11/06/17  |  SermonAudio Tip: SermonAudio iPhone + iPad Edition v4.4.3! • 117 comments
MORE SPECIAL | MORE..
COMMENTS | show all | add new  
    Sorting Order:  
· Page 1 ·  Found: 1 user comment(s)
News Item5/12/05 5:05 PM
John | San Jose, CA  
Article says:

"If you believe in evolution, you believe it started with the tiniest 1celled
lifeform which came probably from plantlife which came from water."

I can even remember being told that the whole universe started out as just a
bunch of hydrogen...you know, that oderless, colorless gas that, if left to
itself, eventually turns into PEOPLE!...according to EVOLUTION.

...and if you believe that I have several BRIDGES I would like to sell you!


JSS

1
There are a total of 1 user comments displayed | add new comment |Subscribe to these comments
Last PostTotal
Roy Moore's lawyer: 'Release the yearbook'
ignominious emirakan from fetus means little baby: "'after all, the bible says..."
-23 min 23 
Sola scriptura cited as Reformation bedrock
b. mccausland: " penned thank you .. ... calvinism is a philisophical approach..."
-33 min 500 
World's first human head transplant a success, controversial...
ignominious emirakan from oscilloscope dope hope: "sci-fi -'donovan's brain'- ..."
-2 hrs 



Andrew Quigley
Suffering - Why We Have To!

Addressing Life's Issues
Sunday - AM
Airdrie Reformed Presbyterian
Play! | MP3 | RSS


Hourly: Communion of Blood and Body
Dr. Alan Cairns
Faith Free Presbyterian...
Staff Picks..

Dr. Peter Masters
Commands with a Meaning

Leviticus
Metropolitan Tabernacle
Video!Play! | MP4

Sermon: When God Doesn't Make Sense
E. A. Johnston

SPONSOR | 6,900+

SPONSOR




                   
There is no place for any loose stone in God's edifice. ... Joseph Hall

Gospel of John
Cities | Local | Personal


MOBILE
iPhone + iPad New!
Church App
Watch
Android
Church App
Kindle + Nook
Wear
Chromecast TV
Apple TV
Android TV New!
ROKU TV
Amazon Fire TV New!
Amazon Echo New!
Kindle Reader


HELP
Knowledgebase
Broadcasters
Listeners
Q&A
Uploading Sermons
Uploading Videos
Webcasting
Tips & Tricks
YouTube Screencasts

FOLLOW
Weekly Newsletter
Staff Picks Feed
SA Newsroom New!
RSS | Twitter | Facebook
SERVICES | ALL
Church Finder | Info
Sermon Player
Mobile & Apps
Podcasting | Videos
Live Webcasting
Events Support
Transcription | PowerClips
Billboards New!
Business Cards
SOLO | MINI | Domain
Favorites | QR Codes
Online Donations
24x7 Radio Stream
INTEGRATION
Embed Codes
Goodies
WordPress
Twitter
Facebook
Logos | e-Sword | BW
JSON API

BATCH
Transfer Agent
Protected Podcasts
Auto-Upload Sermons
Upload via FTP
Upload via Dropbox
Picasa
ABOUT US
The largest and most trusted library of audio sermons from conservative churches and ministries worldwide.

Our Services | Articles of Faith
Broadcast With Us
Advertising | Local Ads
CONTACT
info@sermonaudio.com
Support Us | Feedback Fridays | Stories