Jump to content


Photo

I'm Back And I Need Help Reaching Thousands!


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 Yirmiyahu

Yirmiyahu

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 17
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • United States

Posted 24 June 2012 - 10:36 PM

Hello everybody, I haven't been on in a couple of months because of school and work but now that I'm done with school I have more free time. Anyways to make a long story short I was approached by a political organization to write an article for their newspaper in its faith section and they specifically asked me to write about creation v.s. evolution. So I've got a great opportunite guys!!! Posted Image I know this paper has over 40,000 people who pick it up monthly (at least at one time, maybe more or less now) so I've got a great chance to inform lots of people in my state. The problem is I can't seem to focus on choosing one topic so I thought I would get help from my friends here.

Which topic about the creation v.s. evolution should I write about that all these people will read? I want it to be something important that is understood by the average reader (so not to compicated) and rowls the reader up to try and make a difference. Also I have only been given 500 words to write about whatever the topic is so please keep that in mind. But they said if I do good on the first article I could do a part 2 or second article.

So please guys help me out!!! Posted Image

#2 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 25 June 2012 - 12:15 AM

Congratulations ! I don't think I can give you advice you'd be interested in, but getting to write an article for a paper and possibly having it become a recurring or regular thing is very cool indeed.
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#3 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5714 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 26 June 2012 - 09:46 PM

Congrats

Perhaps cover the scientific arguments for Creation, or the scientific arguments against evolution. I know of many evolutionists who cringe each time someone quotes the Bible in defense of Creationism... Hence in order to reach these people, fight "fire" with "fire", or should I say, science with science.

Whist the topic choice is yours, being a Biologist I'm more partial to arguments for creation via DNA / organism systems complexity.


Perhaps a good idea would be to browse the forum and let us know of any topics that interest you. Happy hunting Posted Image

#4 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1496 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 02 July 2012 - 07:02 AM

[quote] name='Yirmiyahu' timestamp='1340602595' post='84499']
Hello everybody, I haven't been on in a couple of months because of school and work but now that I'm done with school I have more free time. Anyways to make a long story short I was approached by a political organization to write an article for their newspaper in its faith section and they specifically asked me to write about creation v.s. evolution. So I've got a great opportunite guys!!! Posted Image I know this paper has over 40,000 people who pick it up monthly (at least at one time, maybe more or less now) so I've got a great chance to inform lots of people in my state. The problem is I can't seem to focus on choosing one topic so I thought I would get help from my friends here.

Which topic about the creation v.s. evolution should I write about that all these people will read? I want it to be something important that is understood by the average reader (so not to compicated) and rowls the reader up to try and make a difference. Also I have only been given 500 words to write about whatever the topic is so please keep that in mind. But they said if I do good on the first article I could do a part 2 or second article.

So please guys help me out!!! Posted Image
[/quote]

Hello Yirm,

I hope I'm not too late with my input, and it would be fun if you posted it here for atheists to challenge and for Christian creationists to read and comment on.

An excellent source for you to consult, of course, is "Real Scienc Friday" with Fred Williams and Bob Enyart on KGOV.com. There are a whole series of shows from which you can choose a topic. Here's an argument I use against Mormons (and atheists). Mormons believe that matter is eternal since their gods are not eternal past. Our God always was; their gods come to be.

The first law of thermodynamics states that no new matter can be created or destroyed. Many atheists interpret this to mean that we have an infinite amount of matter or energy. But what it really says is that no new matter or energy is coming into existence. Nature is not creating any new matter or energy. (And this comports perfectly with Scripture in that God created all that exists in six days and rested on the seventh.) Now you can get energy from matter, and matter from energy (as Einstein said), but we must have both at the same, and only God can do that. You can't have energy without matter and you can't have matter without energy. And you can't have both at the same time without God. Now we know that matter can't create itself from nothing (first law).

If we pretend that this "first" conundrum is not there (which atheists do), we run smack dab into another killer conundrum. The second law of thermodynamics says, basically, that a fire will not burn forever, and we must burn matter to get energy. And when we do, some of the energy produced is lost (becomes unuseale) never to be recaptured and used again. So the useable amount of energy in the universe is ever decreasing. There is a finite amount of it to use. At the advent of the industrial revolution in England and Europe, the industrialists spent "big bucks" (or pounds and francs and marks) on scientists and engineers to try and get the biggest bang for their money generating energy to run their machinery. Actually, they were hoping for the perpetual motion machine mentioned in Atlas Shrugged. They envisioned recapturing the heat and reusing it. A simple version of this fairytale machine is a battery powering a generator which in turn recharged the battery. But that dang second law gets in the way. And it gets worser: The universe is going from order to disorder, and energy must be expended to maintain order. I'm 77, and my body is going from order to disorder. Now I can slow down this process a bit by exercising (expending energy), but without being able to eat from the Tree of Life mentioned in Genesis and Revelation, my body will eventually become totally disordered and I will die physically. The good news is that I will not die spiritually as I am in Jesus Christ Who is risen never to die again.. And it gets better. Jesus will give me a new raptured body which will never see disorder or corruption again. I just had to add that good news.

So the insurmountable problem for the atheist:

The universe could not have created itself from nothing--first law.
The universe could not have always been here--second law.
What alternative does the atheist have to overcome these two laws?

There is none. And the laws of thermodynamics are the most tested, observed, and proved scientific laws we have. Ironically, atheists who accuse Christian creationists of not being scientific will do physical and logical distortions and gymnastics to keep from facing the truth of the very scientific laws they worship.

I recommend though that you immitate Paul and presuppose some of the atheist arguments and counter them. For example: You always get the closed open system argument, which can be easily refuted. And of course you will get the big bang--that all that exists exploded from a condensing of matter to the size of a period at the end of this sentence"." But the univrse can't be eternal past even if it is the size of a period (second law).

And if they give you a second shot, you can provide transcendental arguments for God. I personally like this argument because the atheist has to use what he denies to argue for. For example, the atheistic materialist believes that only matter exists. But then he must use laws of logic and rational rhought (which are not physical) to argue that only matter exists. This is tantamount to denying the existence of gravity while standing on the ground to make an argument; or arguing that there is no such thing as a good argument; or proclaiming that it is absolutely true that there are no truths.

I pray this helps.

TeeJay




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users