You can read the rest of the article at CMI.

The Huffington Post ran an article on Five Reasons Why Evolution Is Important by Steven Newton, Public Information Project Director for the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). It was run on 12 February 2010 to celebrate Charles Darwin's 201st birthday.

Newton gives five medical examples of natural selection and claims that proves "evolution" is important. Everyone would agree that medical care and health are paramount, and so if evolution helps medical research then people will obviously think evolution is vital.

But his argument is misleading. In fact, the confused nature of his argument has been pointed out so many times that I'm sure Steven Newton and the others at NCSE are aware of it. They have to be deliberately muddying the waters here.

Why is it confusing? Ask yourself, "What does Newton mean by 'evolution'?" He is confusing us because he is using the word in two different ways. It's a trick. Newton gives examples of change by means of "natural selection", which is one meaning of the word. Then he says those examples explain "the diversity of life on this planet". Hold on—not so fast.

The more I read the gospels, and the New Testament, the more convinced I am of their authenticity. They make a scandalous claim that people reject without ever truly taking it seriously. Take 1 John 1:1-5 for example,

1That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

2(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)

3That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

4And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.

5This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you

Notice the claim. The author's intent is to tell you God came in the flesh in the Person of the Son the second member of the Trinity. He then says in verse 5 that God actually gave them a message which if you don't believe you are in deep doo-doo. It is dishonest to not take the author's intent at face value. When I read the gospels, I read the resurrection story in Luke yesterday,I see reliability and accurate history. It is amazing. Here is an article by Dr. Richard Bauckham dealing with this subject,

The Four Gospels as Authentic Testimony

Here is an excerpt,

Hence Luke's sense of urgency?
That's right. The argument of my book is that the eyewitnesses not only told their own stories at the beginning and created the oral tradition that then continued, but that the eyewitnesses were there right through that period, as long as they lived. I think they would have been regarded as the sources and, in a way, the guarantors of the tradition, those who were faithfully preserving the tradition. In terms of current New Testament scholarship, my book is putting the eyewitnesses back into the picture.

Sexual addiction, or as I call it sexual idolatry, is becoming more and more of an issue. Most have never thought about it until the Tiger Woods situation brought it to the forefront. Now people use it as an excuse. This article by Pure Life Ministries deals with this issue in a biblical manner. If anyone on Gs has a problem with this issue message me. I have a ministry that helps people who are sexually addictied and I deal with it from a spiritual perspective that gets at the root of the problem.

You can read the rest of the article at Pure Life Ministries.

Solomon intimately understood how powerful sexual temptation can be for a young man. It was with him in mind that he wrote the fifth chapter of Proverbs. "My son, give attention to my wisdom, incline your ear to my understanding… For the lips of an adulteress drip honey and smoother than oil is her speech." (Proverbs 5:1-3)

Those two sentences perfectly describe both the power of sexual temptation and its antidote. The wise king understood that, if a young man is to successfully withstand the charms of the temptress, he must be prepared ahead of time. Time spent in the Word everyday builds up a man's immune system against the poison of pornography. The scriptures are simply the thinking and perspectives of the Lord. As a man continually immerses himself in the Bible, he will gradually take on God's mindset toward life, people and, yes, even sexuality. A man who devotes daily time to the Word is given spiritual insight into the power of temptation and how it works.

You can read the entire article at American Vision.

Modern atheists recognize a problem in their worldview. That is, it leads to complete chaos when lived out consistently since, to them,there is no such thing as objectively morality. Murder is no longer immoral but simply the strong surviving over the weak. Rape is no longer immoral but simply the action of a man promoting his genotyope more than others. Atheists recognize this (see Dan Barker v. Dr. Doug Wilson debate). So they are trying to explain objective morality naturally. Dan Barker has mentioned this in his debates many times. That is why I found Sam Harris' pursuit so interesting. Here is an excerpt from Joel McDurmon's article,

The description from TED's website summarizes the talk: "Questions of good and evil, right and wrong are commonly thought unanswerable by science. But Sam Harris argues that science can — and should — be an authority on moral issues, shaping human values and setting out what constitutes a good life." This is an accurate description. Sam is reacting to the common argument that you cannot derive moral values for nature simply from nature itself: in other words, you cannot derive an "ought" from an "is." Whatever is, is. Period. This can say nothing about how whatever is ought to be. Sam disagrees. He argues that values reduce to simple material facts—facts about different human experiences and consciousness—and that these experiences can be observed and measured objectively by studying the brain.

What he's trying to say, while concealing it with fancy language, is that moral values reduce to brain states of pleasure and pain. Of course, this leads to relativism—what makes one man happy won't another—and Sam is after objective moral values. But he's able to distract his followers from this problem with lots of appeals to extreme examples of religious "morality" like the forced veiling of women and suicide bombers. He further burkas his fallacy with lots of references to science.

This is from one of my favorite apologetics sites called American Vision. This series is in 3 parts.

Eviscerating Evolution part 1

Eviscerating Evolution part 2

Eviscerating Evolution part 3

Since the findings of James D. Watson and Francis H. C. Crick, it was increasingly realized by contemporary researchers that the information residing in the cells is of crucial importance for the existence of life. Anybody who wants to make meaningful statements about the origin of life would be forced to explain how the information originated. All evolutionary views are fundamentally unable to answer this crucial question. (In the Beginning was Information by Werner Gitt)

This was written by my good friend Pastor Dave Jenkins of Servants of Grace Ministries. You can read the entire article there. Just click on the link above.

There are two main objections to the cla$$ical view of hell; the first of which is eternal hell is cruel and the second that Scripture teaches annihilation.God created mankind in His image to know, serve and glorify Him. InAdam's sin of disobedience to the revealed Will and Word of God; man lost his innocence, and incurred the penalty of spiritual and physical death. Man then is incapable of doing or choosing what is acceptable to God apart from divine grace.Accusing God of judging one on false pretenses is logically inconsistent because Adam sinned, and sin is worthy of separation from God forever. Legally mankind deserves the wrath of God for Adam's sin, because of the sin nature passed down from Adam. The charge that hell is cruel is logically and scripturally impossible to defend.

This video is about 8 min. long but reflects the attitude I see from most atheists.

The New Atheists!

By the way, when he states that atheists have no morality he means they have no objective basis for morality which is true.

Here is a short video that answers that question.

Should Christians play violent video games?

It is only about 2 min.

This article was really good. It is about Nietsche and how he would look at modern day atheists such as Dawkins, Hitchens, Meyers...ect. I hope it blesses you. Here is the link,

Atheism's Moral Swindle by Joel McDurmon

It has been a rough week in some ways and a good week in others. I taught on the Melchizedek priesthood last Friday. It baffles my mind how RC's defend their priesthood in light of the teaching in Hebrews on Christ's intercessory work. It is just staggering. This week in the CWU,

1. The Presumptuousness of Atheism - I'll quote from the author to describe the article, What the atheist fails to see is that atheism is just as much a claim to know something ("God does not exist") as theism ("God exists"). Therefore, the atheist's denial of God's existence needs just as much substantiation as does the theist's claim; the atheist must give plausible reasons for rejecting God's existence. Atheist Dan Barker (FFRF) understands this.

2. Is Darwinism Atheistic - The synopsis of the article says,A careful study of Darwin's writings, especially his posthumously published private notebooks and personal communication, reveals that Darwin was indeed an atheist and his theory of natural selection was formulated to replace a Creator with naturalistic processes. Read the article to find out more. This has been my contention all along.

3. The Prayer Warrior - Explains what true prayer is through the example of Epaphras.

And in the BBU we hve,

1. Planned Parenthood's Abortion Quotas Exposed - I've seen this time and time again and it is just horrible. Check out the article.

2. The Darwinizing of Religion Continues - This is beyond absurd but it is a perfect example of what happens when one stupidly thinks naturalism can explain everything.

3. The Cost of Not Following Christ - This is an excellent sermon by Paul Washer. It is about an hour long.

I hope you check out everything in these 2 excellent unions. We have a wealth of info about the christian faith, debunking the sci-fi that is evolution, politcs...ect.