He Himself knows our frame;
He is mindful that we are but DUST
As for man his days are like GRASS
As a flower of the field, so he flourishes.
When th wind has passed over it, it is NO MORE;
And its place acknowledges it NO longer.

But the lovingkindness of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear Him,
And His righteousness to children's children,
To those who keep His covenant,
And who remember His precepts to do them.

Darwins Theory is NOT scientific

1.
1. cosmic Evolution - the origin of time space and matter
2. chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen
3. stellar and planetary evolution -orgin of stars and planets
4. organic evolution - origin of life
5. macro-evolution - changing from one kind of animal into another
6. micro evolution--variation within kinds (only this one has been observed

FIRST FIVE... HAVE NOT BEEN OBSERVED... EVER

2.
Big bang:  What exploded?
Evolution started off teaching
12 trillion miles exploded
1965 275 million miles
1972 to 71 million miles
1974 to 54 thousand miles
1983 to "a trillionth the diameter of a proton"
now... to "nothing at all"  so um nothing exploded???

"...the observable universe could have evolved from an infinitesimal region (aka DOT).  It's then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing."  -Alan Guth

"the tiny dot spun faster and faster and exploded" -public school text book

Where did all this matter... that spun... come from?
--they say.. I don't know
--they ask... where did God come from and we don't know
sooo... we believe in the beginning God...
they believe in the beginning.... dirt



DON'T TELL ME MY THEORY IS RELIGION AND YOURS IS SCIENCE... SORRY THEY ARE BOTH RELIGION.  THEY BOTH TAKE FAITH TO BELIEVE

The only difference is that the religion of evolution is tax supported... and denies God.

And my TAX paying dollars are going to indoctrinate students with the religion of evolution... Don't teach me evolution... teach me SCIENCE!  

3.
Who gave the laws?  the energy?  
Evolution needs the laws and energy to work... um where did they come from?  Why are they still not EVOLVING???  

Conservation of Angular Momentum
Q:  If the whole universe began as a swirling dot...
why do two planets spin backwards? (Venus & Uranus)
6 moons spin backwards?

Doesn't follow this SCIENTIFIC LAW!

If the big bang THEORY were true, the matter would be evenly distributed.  Instead it is "lumpy".  There are clusters of stars then great "voids".

"I have a little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory" --Sir Fred Hoyle (astronomer, cosmologist and mathematician, Cambridge University)

4.
4.6 Billion years ago the earth formed
Was the earth ever a hot molten mass?
"And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the WATERS" Gen 1:2

Looking at Polonium Halos in rocks... Polonium would have to decay inside of a solid rock in order for evolution to be true... www.halos.com

5.
The first living cells emerged between 4 billion and 3.8 billion years ago.  There is no record of the event"  (Biology the Unity and diversity of life wadsworth 1992 p. 300)


6.

"Several billion years ago, Earth's atmosphere had no free oxygen as it does today." p 412

not true

In Millers experiment Miller excluded oxygen in a reducing atmosphere because life could not evolve with oxygen present.  Any amino acids that try to combine are "oxidized" .

He did use ammonia (one of the gasses needed to conduct his experiment)... which is actually destroyed by U.V. light and U.V. light must be blocked by the ozone which is made from... you guessed it OXYGEN

thuuussss... Life CANNOT evolve without OXYGEN but according to evolutionist... it  cannot evolve with oxygen... so which is it????

solution: Life did not evolve

in FACT:  The earth has always had oxygen--even more then, than today.  Oxygen is found in the lowest rocks (for instance, it created air bubbles in amber (the rock that was drilled to find the mosquito)--the air bubbles in this rock have 50% more oxygen than we do)  -Time Magazine Nov 9, 1987 p 82

Also Miller in his experiment filtered out product so it would not be destroyed by the next trip past the spark  (problem: not realistic in nature).  This made 85% tar, 13% carboxylic acid (both toxic to life) and only TWO % amino acids... that's right kids!
20 different amino acids are needed for life... there was only 2 in this experiment with the mass portion toxic to life  FAILURE EXPERIMENT




7.

If you find a fossil in the dirt:  All you know is that it died, you don't know if it had any kids let alone different kids

Logic:  Dogs produce dogs... dogs have never produced a human or a cat or a cow...

"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of evolutionary transitions in my book.  If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly included them.  I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil." Dr colin Paterson, Senior Paleontologists, British Museum of Natural History in correspondence to Luther Sunderland quoted in Darwin's' Enigma 1988 p. 89

There are no missing links!  The whole chain is missing!  "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages has been a persistent and nagging problem for evolution" Dr Stephen J Gould, Evolution Now p140 Marxist Professor at Harvard University

We have the theory we know it's true we just need the evidence (that the way they think about it!)

There are varieties of dogs... the ancestor... a dog

Problems with horse evolution
1. Made up by Othniel C. Marsh in 1874 from fossils scattered across the world, not from same location.
2. Modern horses are found in layers with and lower than " ancient horses"
3. The "ancient horse" (hyracotherium) is not a horse but is just like the hyrax still alive in Turkey and East Africa... TODAY!
4. Ribs, toes and teeth are very different
5. South American fossils go from 1 toed to 3 toed (reverse order)
6. In text books never found in order presented
7. 3 toed and 1 toed horses grazed side by side

Fossils are found at every level of the "Geologic Column"

8.
Geologic Column (different layers of the earth being different ages)
Grand Canyon - Made over millions of years by the colorado river

(Rivers do not flow up hill.  The top part of the canyon is higher than the bottom by over a mile.  The river runs through the bottom.  The top is higher than where the river enters the canyon by 4000 feet.  Once again, rivers do not flow up hill.  The canyon is a breached damn)

So the Geologic Column-- it does NOT exists
The layers are not different ages
If the geologic column existed in one location it would be 100 miles thick - Biology P 385

If you look at the Grand Canyon--the layers of different ages,  why are there no erosion marks between the layers? -Merrill Earth Science 1993 p 149
(If these layers were sitting there for so many years, don't you think it would rain once or twice???)

Layers are desposited pretty rapidly--proven SCIENTIFICALLY-- if you take a jar of dirt and put some water in it, shake it up and set it down it will  settle in layers automatically (hydrologic sorting)

how do you know the age of the layers---They say, by what kind of fossils you find in the layers called index fossils

how do you know the age of the fossils--They say, we tell the age of the fossils by which layer it's in.

CIRCULAR REASONING!!!

Geologic Column is all based on circular reasoning

"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately.  -O'Rourke, J.E.


All through the layers all over the world  you find petrified trees standing up through multiple ROCK layers... hmmmm
The trees could not had been covered by the rocks over millions of years because they would rot and fall down... Science people!

9.
carbon dating

The Earth's atmosphere has 6 layers today and is about 100 miles thick.  Some Radiation from the sun, goes through those layers and produces Carbon 14

1.Carbon 14 is radioactive and unstable
It breaks down to nitrogen at the rate of 1/2 every 5, 730 years.
So half turns into nitrogen and the rest is still C14 -
2. During photosynthesis plants breath in CO2 and make it part of their tissue.  ( some of the C is C14)
6CO2+6H2O - C6H12O6+6O2
Animals eat the plants and it then goes into their body
So at some point in our lives we have eaten these plants or eaten the animals that eat these plants... So we have radioactive C14 in us
Theoretically whatever we have in us will match the atmosphere
3. It is assumed that the ration of radio-active C14 to normal C12 in the atmosphere would be the same ration found in the living plants and animals.
For example: If the atmophere is .0000756% C14.  It is assumed the plants have the same %

It goes from 1/2 - 1/4 -1/8 -1/16 to not much.. never to totally zero
after about 4 or 5 half lives you cannot measure it
so if anyone ever says, we know the earth is millions of years old
because of Carbon Dating.. weelllll you can rest assured they don't
have a clue of what they are talking about
Because it would only work for about 40 to 50 thousand years MAX


10.
Definition of Science

The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment




Evolution has NEVER been observed and it has never ever ever been replicated in an experiment...

Solution to this major problem:
 Evolution... NOT SCIENCE!!!

For decades students have been shown a representation of the fossil record appearing as a vertical column with marine invertebrates on the bottom, overlain by fish, then amphibians, reptiles, and mammals, with man on the top. The column is a column of time, they are told, with the long ago past on the bottom and the present on top. The fossil column (or similar figure) is presented without question as if it were true—as if it were real data. Students are led to believe that the order of first appearance of the fossils over time proves evolution.

I suggest that it does no such thing, for several reasons. First, the fossils do not occur in this order, simple to complex from bottom to top. The fossils at the bottom (i.e., long ago) are equally as complex as any animal today, and are essentially the same as their modern counterparts. In reality, the fossils appear abruptly in the record, fully formed and fully functional without less adapted ancestors in lower levels that would have preceded them in time. To be honest, the entire fossil record consists of predominately marine invertebrates (animals without a backbone, like clams, jellyfish, coral). The column is nothing more than a statement of evolutionary thinking. A case can perhaps be made for the order of first appearance of vertebrates (i.e., fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals), but vertebrate fossils are exceptions to the rule and usually quite fragmentary, with the lower range of each often being extended downward with new discoveries. Most come from Ice Age deposits which sometimes contain human remains also.

Second, the evolutionary presentation in the textbook column implies that all life has come from one (or perhaps a few) common ancestor(s). But the Cambrian System, the lowest (i.e., oldest) level containing extensive multicellular fossils, exhibits a virtual explosion of life. Suddenly (by this I mean without the necessary ancestors lower in the column), every phylum of life is found—every basic body style, including vertebrate fish. The abrupt appearance of diverse forms of life does not match with evolutionary predictions of one form descending into many.

Third, these diverse forms continue up the column (i.e., throughout time) with much the same appearance possessed at the start. The term stasis describes the tendency to "stay" the same, remain "stationary" or "static." Some body styles go extinct as you come up the column, but no new basic styles are introduced.

Summarizing:

1) Abrupt appearance
2) Diversity at the start, and
3) Stasis.

Certainly the fossil record does not prove evolution. On the other hand, its character fully supports creation of multiple "kinds" at the start with no evolutionary lineage, and continuance of those rather static kinds with limited adaptations into the present, or else going extinct. This is the creation idea.

The fossils further support the Flood. While no evolutionary trends can be seen bridging the basic kinds and producing new ones, we do see a transition from totally marine at the bottom to more terrestrial toward the top. At every level the dominant fossil is marine, but more and more land-dwelling fossils creep in. What more persuasive testimony to the Biblical model could there be?

Copyright John D Morris Ph.D.

A CLOSE FRIEND OF MINE PUT THIS IN HIS BLOG... IT WAS SO GOOD I THOUGHT THAT I WOULD PUT IT IN MY BLOG FOR MY FRIENDS AND WHOEVER ELSE TO READ... SO YA...

Michael Birkhead ©2008


Below is the most logically incontrivertable evidence that God exists. The argument is known as "TAG" The Transcendental Argument for the existence of God.
This argument was popularized by the Bahnsen/Stein debate (AKA The Great Debate) in the 80's. The Christians kicked the Atheists butt (in a manner of speaking) in that debate.
However, here is a rehash of the argument broken down into bite size points for all of us to understand and to open everyone's eyes to the proof that God is real and he is transcendent.
I have seen several bloggers change their name to "X is magnifying logic" (X being the persons name).
Well, in magnifying logic, this argument will prove that you are also magnifying God without realizing, thus defeating your own purpose of trying to magnify something other than God. (and thus, God gets all the glory).

I will also post a response to TANG (The Transcendental Argument for the non-existence of God) below the TAG argument, just for the sake of those of you who are convinced by TANG that TAG is invalid - you're wrong.
http://www.carm.org/atheism/transcendental_outline.htm
Author: Matt Slick
The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God

This is an attempt to demonstrate the existence of God using logical absolutes. The oversimplified argument, which is expanded in outline form below, goes as follows. Logical absolutes exist. Logical absolutes are conceptual by nature, are not dependent on the space, time, physical properties, or human nature.
They are not the product of the physical universe (space, time, matter) because if the physical universe were to disappear, logical absolutes would still be true. Logical Absolutes are not the product of human minds because human minds are different, not absolute. But, since logical absolutes are always true everywhere and not dependent upon human minds, it must be an absolute transcendent mind is authoring them. This mind is called God. ....

1. Logical Absolutes ....
1. Law of Identity ....
1. Something is what it is and isn't what it is not. Something that exists has a specific nature. ....
2. For example, a cloud is a cloud, not a rock. A fish is a fish, not a car. ....
2. Law of Non-Contradiction ....
1. Something cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same sense. ....
2. For example, to say that the cloud is not a cloud would be a contradiction since it would violate the first law. The cloud cannot be what it is and not what it is at the same time. ....
3. Law of Excluded Middle ....
1. A statement is either true or false, without a middle ground. ....
2. "I am alive" is either true or false. "You are pregnant" is either true or false. ....
1. Note one: "This statement is false" is not a valid statement (not logically true) since it is self refuting and is dealt with by the Law of Non-contradiction. Therefore, it does not fall under the LEM category since it is a self-contradiction. ....
2. Note two: If we were to ignore note one, then there is a possible paradox here. The sentence "This statement is false" does not fit this Law since if it is true, then it is false. Paradoxes occur only when we have absolutes. Nevertheless, the LEM is valid except for the paradoxical statement cited. ....
3. Note three: If we again ignore note one, and admit a paradox, then we must acknowledge that paradoxes exist only with the realm of absolutes. ....
2. Logical absolutes are truth statements such as ....
1. That which exists has attributes and a nature. ....
1. A cloud exists and has the attributes of whiteness, vapor, etc. It has the nature of water and air. ....
2. A rock is hard, heavy, and is composed of its rock material (granite, marble, sediment, etc.). ....
2. Something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time. ....
1. It cannot be true to state that a rock is not a rock. ....
3. Something cannot bring itself into existence. ....
1. In order for something to bring itself into existence, it has to have attributes in order to perform an action. But if it has attributes, then it already has existence. If something does not exist, it has no attributes and can perform no actions therefore, something cannot bring itself into existence. ....
4. Truth is not self-contradictory. ....
1. It could not be true that you are reading this and not reading this at the same time in the same sense. It is either true or false that you are reading this. ....
5. Therefore, Logical Absolutes are absolutely true. They are not subjectively true; that is, they are not sometimes true and sometimes false depending on preference, or situation. Otherwise, they would not be absolute. ....
3. Logical Absolutes form the basis of rational discourse ....
1. If the Logical Absolutes are not absolute, then truth cannot be known. ....
2. If the Logical Absolutes are not absolute, then no rational discourse can occur. ....
1. For example, I could say that a square is a circle (violating the law of identity), or that I am and am not alive in the same sense at the same time (violating the law of non contradiction). ....
2. But no one would expect to have a rational conversation with someone who spoke in contradictory statements. ....
3. If Logical Absolutes are not always true, then it might be true that something can contradict itself which would make truth unknowable and rational discourse impossible. But, saying that something can contradict itself can't be true. ....
4. But since we know things are true (I exist, you are reading this), then we can conclude that logical statements are true, otherwise we would not be able to rational discuss or know truth. ....
5. If they are not the basis of rational discourse, then we cannot know truth or error since the laws that govern rationality are not absolute. This would allow people to speak irrationally, i.e., blue sleeps faster than Wednesday. ....
4. Logical Absolutes are transcendent ....
1. Logical Absolutes are not dependent on space. ....
1. They do not stop being true dependent on location. If we traveled a million light years in a direction, logical absolutes are still true. ....
2. Logical Absolutes are not dependent on time. ....
1. They do not stop being true dependent on time. If we traveled a billion in the future or past, logical absolutes are still true. ....
3. Logical Absolutes are not dependent on people. That is, they are not the product of human thinking. ....
1. People's minds are different. What one person considers to be absolute may not be what another considers to be absolute. People often contradict each other. Therefore, Logical Absolutes cannot be the product of human, contradictory minds. ....
2. If Logical Absolutes were the product of human minds, then they would cease to exist if people ceased to exist which would mean they would be dependent on human minds. But this cannot be so per the previous point. ....
5. Logical Absolutes are not dependent on the material world ....
1. Logical Absolutes are not found in atoms, motion, heat, under rocks, etc. ....
2. Logical Absolutes cannot be photographed, frozen, weighed, or measured. ....
3. Logical Absolutes are not the product of the physical universe since that would mean they were contingent on atoms, motion, heat, etc. and that their nature was dependent on physical existence. ....
1. If their nature were dependent upon physical existence, they would cease to exist when the physical universe ceases to exist. ....
4. But, if the universe did not exist, logical absolutes are still true. ....
1. For example, if the universe did not exist it is still true that something cannot bring itself into existence, that anything that did exist would have an identity, and that whatever could exist could not be itself and not itself at the same time. ....
2. Therefore, they are not dependent on the material world. ....
6. Logical Absolutes are conceptual by nature ....
1. Logic is a process of the mind. Logical absolutes provide the framework for logical thought processes. Therefore, Logical Absolutes are conceptual by nature. ....
1. If they are conceptual by nature, they are not dependent upon the physical universe for their existence. ....
7. Thoughts reflect the mind ....
1. A person's thoughts reflect what he or she is. ....
2. Absolutely perfect thoughts reflect an absolutely perfect mind. ....
3. Since the Logical Absolutes are transcendent, absolute, are perfectly consistent, and are independent of the universe, then they reflect a transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind. ....
4. We call this transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind, God. ....
8. Objections Answered ....
1. Logical Absolutes are the result of natural existence ....
1. In what sense are they the result of natural existence? How do conceptual absolutes form as a result of the existence of matter? ....
2. Logical Absolutes simply exist. ....
1. This is begging the question and does not provide an explanation for their existence. Simply saying they exist is not an answer. ....
3. Logical Absolutes are conventions. ....
1. A convention, in this context, is an agreed upon principle. But since people differ on what is and is not true, then logical absolutes cannot be the product of human minds and therefore are not the product of human conventions; that is, of human agreements. ....
2. This would mean that logical absolutes were invented upon an agreement by a sufficient number of people. But this would mean that logical absolutes with a product of human minds which cannot be the case since human minds differ and are often contradictory. Furthermore, the nature of logical absolutes is that the trend send space and time and are absolute by nature. Therefore, they could not be the product of human minds are finite and not absolute. ....
4. Logical Absolutes are eternal. ....
1. What is meant by stating they are eternal? ....
2. If a person says that logical absolutes have always existed, then how is it they could exist without a mind (if the person denies the existence of an absolute and transcendent mind)? ....
5. Logical Absolutes are uncaused ....
1. Since the nature of logic is conceptual and logical absolutes form the framework of this conceptual process known as logic, it would be logical to conclude that the only way logical absolutes could be uncaused, as if there was an uncaused and absolute mind authoring them. ....
6. Logical Absolutes are self authenticating. ....
1. This means it logical absolutes validate themselves. While this is true, it does not explain their existence. ....
2. It is begging the question. It just says the are, because they are. ....
7. Logical Absolutes are like rules of chess which are not absolute and transcendent. ....
1. The rules of chess are human inventions since Chess is a game invented by people. In fact, the rules of chess have changed over the years, but logical absolutes have not. So, comparing the rules of chess to logical absolutes is invalid. ....
8. There are different kinds of logic ....
1. Saying there are different kinds of logic does not explain the existence of logical absolutes. ....
9. "Logical absolutes need no transcendental existence: saying "they would be true even if matter didn't exist" is irrelevant, because we're concerned with their existence, not their logical validity. Saying "the idea of a car would still exist even if matter didn't exist" doesn't imply that your car is transcendental. (reductio ad absurdum)" ....
1. Why do logical absolute need no transcendental existence? Simply saying they don't need a transcendental existence doesn't account for their existence. "Need" deals with desire and wants, which are irrelevant to the discussion of the nature of logical absolutes. ....
2. Also, why is it irrelevant to say that they would be true even if matter didn't exist? On the contrary, it is precisely relevant to the discussion since we're dealing with the nature of logical absolutes which are conceptual realities, not physical ones. ....
3. The illustration that a car would still exist if matter did not exist is illogical. By definition, a car is made of matter and if matter did not exist, a car could not logically exist. By contrast, logical absolutes are not made of matter. The objection is invalid. ....
10. "Logical abstractions do not have existence independent of our minds. They are constructs in our minds (i.e. brains), and we use them to carry out computations via neural networks, silicon networks, etc. Suggested by the fact that logic - like language - is learned, not inbuilt. (ball's in your court to demonstrate an independent existence, or problem with this)" (...continued in next objection...) ....
1. How do you know that logical abstractions do not have existence independent of our minds? Saying so, doesn't make it so. This is precisely one of the points about the nature of logical absolutes; namely, that they are a process of the mind but are not dependent upon human bodies because human minds contradict each other and are also self-contradictory. This would preclude our minds from being the authors of what is logically absolute. Furthermore, if they are constructions of our minds, then all I have to do is claim victory in any argument because that is how I construct my logical abstractions. But, of course, you wouldn't accept this as being valid. Therefore, this demonstrates your assertion is incorrect. No ....
11. (continued from previous objection...) "Logical absolutes are absolute not because of some special quality, but because we judge them using logic. Therefore their absoluteness doesn't arise from any special ontological quality. (category error on your part)" ....
1. You are begging the question. You use logic to demonstrate logical absolutes are absolute. You are not giving a rational reason for their existence. Instead, you assume their existence and argue accordingly. ....
2. Furthermore, when you presuppose the validity of logical absolutes to demonstrate that they are absolute, you contradict your statement in your previous objection about them being constructs of human minds. They cannot be constructs of human minds because human minds contradict each other and themselves. ....
3. I do not see any category mistake on my part. The nature of logical absolutes is that they are conceptual, not physical. This is something I have brought out before so that their categories do not get mixed. The nature of logical absolutes is exactly relevant to the question. ....
12. (continued from previous objection...) "Logical absolutes can be accurately described as conventions in communication. The fact that they are widely employed does not imply anything transcendental, any more than the wide employment of the word "lolly" as something small and yummy implies that the word "lolly" is transcendental. (non sequitor) ....
1. Saying that they are "widely employed does not imply anything transcendental" is inaccurate. Something that is transcendental, as in logical absolutes, would naturally be widely employed because they are valid. You have recognized that they are widely used, but they are because they are transcendent. They do not become transcendent because they are widely used. ....
2. This still does not account for the existence of logical absolutes. And ....
13. (continued from previous objection...) "Logical processes are clearly carried out by material constructs, usually neural or electrical. They do this without any known "input" or "guidance" from anything transcendental, which makes you wonder why anything transcendental is needed in the equation at all. (reality check) ....
1. You haven't defined "material construct" or what you mean by neural or electrical (constructs). If you mean a computer or something of that kind, this doesn't help you at all because humans designed them using logic. If you mean that they are the process of the human brain, you still haven't solved the problem of their existence since the implication would be that if our minds do not exist, logical absolutes would not exist either. But this would mean that logical absolutes were not absolute but dependent upon human minds. Again the problem would be that human minds are different and contradict each other. Therefore, logical absolutes, which are not contradictory, cannot be the product of minds that are contradictory. ....
2. You don't have to know the input or understand the guidance from anything transcendental for the transcendentals to be true. ....
14. "Logic is one of those characteristics that any healthy human 'has'. It's not free to vary from one person to the next for the same kind of reason that 'number of eyes' is a value that doesn't vary between healthy humans." ....
1. Saying that logic is something that everyone "has" does not explain its existence. Essentially this is begging the question; stating that something exists because it exists. ....
2. The analogy of "eyes" is a category mistake. Eyes are organs. Different organisms have different kinds of eyes and different numbers of eyes. Logic is consistent and independent of biological structures. ....
15. Logic is the result of the semantics of the language which we have chosen: a statement is a theorem of logic if and only if it is valid in all conceivable worlds. If the language is trivalent (true/indetermined/false), tertium non datur is invalid. Uniformity of the universe can be rationally expected in a non-theistic universe. If there is no one around with the transcendental power to change it, why should the behavior of the universe tomorrow differ from its behavior today? ....
1. "semantics of the language". Semantics deals with the study of the meaning of words, their development, changes in meaning, and the interpretation of words, etc. But semantics by nature deals with the changing meaning of words and the often subjective nature of language and its structures. To say that the absolutes of logic are a result of the use of the subjective meanings of words, is problematic. How do you derive logical absolutes from the non-absolute semantic structures of non absolute languages?
Furthermore, simply asserting that logic is result of the semantics of the language does not explain the transcendent nature of logic. Remember, the TAG argument asserts that Logical Absolutes are independent of human existence -- reasons given at beginning of the paper. Since language, in this context, is a result of human existence, the argument would suggest that logic came into existence when language came into existence. But this would invalidate the nature of logical absolutes and their transcendent characteristics. Therefore, this objection is invalid. ....
2. If logic is the result of language, then logic came into existence with language. This cannot be for the reasons stated above. ....
3. If logic is the result of language and since language rules change, then can we conclude that the laws of logic would also change? If so, then the laws of logic are not laws, they are not absolute. ....
4. Saying that "a statement is a theorem of logic" does not account for logic but presupposes existence of logic. This is begging the question.









http://www.carm.org/atheism/tang_answer.htm

Author: Matt Slick

www.carm.org


Answering the Transcendental Argument for the
Non-Existence of God ....

The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (TAG) is a powerful and, in my opinion, non-refutable proof for God's existence. However, there are those who refuse to accept it and have offered a counter argument, the Transcendental Argument for the Non-existence of God (TANG).....

I had heard about this argument via the CARM discussion boards I was pointed to a website that proposed the argument. After reviewing TANG, I found it to be invalid. I'll quote a paragraph from that website that articulates TANG and then I will show you how it is invalid.....

"How might TANG proceed? Consider logic. Logic presupposes that its principles are necessarily true. However, according to the brand of Christianity assumed by TAG, God created everything, including logic; or at least everything, including logic, is dependent on God. But if something is created by or is dependent on God, it is not necessary--it is contingent on God. And if principles of logic are contingent on God, they are not logically necessary. Moreover, if principles of logic are contingent on God, God could change them. Thus, God could make the law of noncontradiction false; in other words, God could arrange matters so that a proposition and its negation were true at the same time. But this is absurd. How could God arrange matters so that ..:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />..New Zealand.. is south of ..China.. and that ....New Zealand.... is not south of it? So, one must conclude that logic is not dependent on God, and, insofar as the Christian world view assumes that logic so dependent, it is false."1....

I will re-create this paragraph below in outline form and analyze the statements one at a time, adding comments accordingly.....

1. "according to the brand of Christianity assumed by TAG, God created everything, including logic; or at least everything, including logic, is dependent on God." ....
1. Clarification: God did not invent or create logic. It is correct to say that logic is dependent upon God since it is a part of his perfect nature. ....
2. If the person writing this article understood TAG properly, he would not assert as part of the TAG argument that God created logic. ....
2. "But if something is created by or is dependent on God, it is not necessary--it is contingent on God." ....
1. Incorrect. If logic is a part of God's nature, then it is necessarily existent because it is based on God's existence. In other words, it necessarily must exist because God exists. ....
2. God's self existence and necessary attributes are consistent with the first Law of logic, the Law of Identity, which states that something is what it is: A = A. Since, as the TAG argument ultimately concludes that God exists (God = God), then his attributes, which are dependent and necessarily a part of his existence, also exist. You cannot separate God's attributes from God himself since his attributes exist because God exists. By way of analogy, I am six feet tall. My height (or whatever height I might be) is an attribute of my existence as a full grown man and it cannot be separated from what I am. Of course, height can be altered but "height" cannot be removed from my physical existence. It is a part of my existence. ....
3. The objection erringly separates God's nature from logic as if logic can be separate thing from God's nature. This is not the TAG argument and it is not logically necessary as show in 2.B above. ....
3. "And if principles of logic are contingent on God, they are not logically necessary." ....
1. If "contingent" here means not necessarily existent but were chosen to come into existence, or were brought into existence somehow, then the argument is invalid for the reason stated in point 2.B above. ....
4. Moreover, if principles of logic are contingent on God, God could change them. ....
1. See point 2.B above. ....
2. This conclusion fails to understand that logic is not separate from God's nature, but is a reflection of God's nature. Since God's nature does not change, the principles of logic cannot change. ....
3. The critic fails to understand the TAG argument properly. ....
5. Thus, God could make the law of noncontradiction false; in other words, God could arrange matters so that a proposition and its negation were true at the same time. But this is absurd. How could God arrange matters so that ..New Zealand.. is south of ..China.. and that ....New Zealand.... is not south of it? So, one must conclude that logic is not dependent on God, and, insofar as the Christian world view assumes that logic so dependent, it is false." ....
1. By now we can see that the argument fails in his earlier assumptions. Therefore, his conclusion cannot be trusted and is not valid. ....
2. "The absolutely impossible may also be called the intrinsically impossible because it carries its impossibility within itself, it's the borrowing it from other impossibilities which in turn depend upon others. It has no unless clause. It is impossible under all conditions and in all worlds and for all agents. "All agents" here include God himself. His omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power. If you choose to say "God can give a creature free will and at the same time with hold free will from it" you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words "God can". It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of his creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because his power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even though we talk it about God."2 ....


__________________________
1. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/martin-frame/tang.html
2. C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain, (Harper Collins Publishers: ....New York....) 1996, p. 18 ....

by Rudyard Kipling

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you
But make allowance for their doubting too,
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting
Or, being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or, being hated, don't give way to hating
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise

If you can dream and not make dreams your master
If you can think and not make thoughts your aim
If you can meet with triumph and disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools
Or watch the things you gave your life to broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn out tools.

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings, nor lose the common touch
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you but none too much,
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds worth of distance run,
Yours is the earth and everything that is in it,
And which is more you'll be a man my son.

Sara and I are now safe and back in the States.

Right now I'm living in Cincinnati Ohio. I went through a little bit of reverse culture shock here and there. But I feel a lot better right now!!! Thank goodness, I definitly think it's worse than culture shock!

As of right now, I'm not doing anything with my life. I'm thinking about going back to school to get a masters in counseling, not sure, what do you think? :)

I'm so glad to be back in a city but I do feel a bit lonely since I don't know or have I met anyone who is my age.

I miss India because I developed amazing friendships that will last for a lifetime, even with my sweet muslim girl!

Anyway, I don't want to bore any of you reading my updates with too much information.. thank you for reading, thank you for praying and thank you for all the times that you have thought of me the last 6 months. If you still want updates on my life, just let me know!

luv u all sooo much!!!!!

Chas

I just want everyone to know that Sara and I are okay. Nothing bad happened at the conference and we didn't not feel threatened afterward. We are now at home and safe. Thank you for speak to Dad for us. Please continue to pray, but be reassured that we will continue our stay here until Feb and that everything is quite normal.

Dear Diary,

I can't believe I am actually in South Asia, and for 6 months!!! The traffic here is totally wack, but it's about the same as the traffic in Russia. There are lines on the road, but honestly, I have no idea why. It's 1:31 am right now where I am sitting, which is on a bed in a one bedroom apartment with Americans. We are actually leaving our front door open because it's too hot to keep it closed. I guess there is no such thing as air conditioning, but we do have a ginormous cealing fan. Sara is praying right now on her little cot and the other girls are asleep. Which reminds me that I too need to be spending time with God.

So our plane ride completely rocked!!! So I'll start from the beginning. Our plane ticket to Asia was very vague and didn't have any info on it. The seat was to be determined. So I went up to the front desk to ask them where we were suppose to sit. This is where I found out that we were not sitting next to each other on a plane that was 15 hours long! But if I was sitting next to someone interesting then it wouldn't be too big a deal. Anyway so she told me that she would see if someone would give up their seat so that we could sit next to each other. So she finally calls me up and gives me the news: We are on business class her treat!!! So we had 3 course meals, big fluffy pillows, a nice very thick blanket, our own person tv screen with a remote. So it was so awesome. And I give all my thanks to God. I believe this is just another conformation that it is His desire for us to go, and although we did nothing to deserve this, He loves us and just wanted to do something to say I love u. What can I say, the plan ride completely rocked!

Thank You Jesus! :)

well now I better sleep so that I can get up in the morning.