Should I Apologize?

I have been writing about the scientific validity of the Bible and the error inherent in modern scientific thought for many years. For a long time before I knew that it was a branch of Christian apologetics. This name has always confused me, although I know its technical meaning. However, I want to tell you what it means to me:

I think I should apologize.

  1. I apologize that you are going to hell if you don’t repent and accept Jesus Christ as your savior (I don’t make the rules).
  2. I apologize that the modern scientific explanation of human origins (the dominant paradigm) is a fake designed to condemn you to hell.
  3. I apologize that the scientific method has been meticulously constructed for the express purpose of keeping you in spiritual darkness.
  4. I apologize for trying to save you from eternal torment.
  5. I apologize for destroying the dominant paradigm with simple logic.
  6. I apologize for showing you that the theoretical foundation of your paradigm is a house of cards built on circular reasoning.
  7. I apologize that everyone thinks that Galileo, Kepler, Newton and Einstein proved heliocentricity. They didn’t.
  8. I apologize that Stephen Hawking used science to validate science fiction, but that’s definitely not my fault.
  9. I apologize for showing you that even though the process of evolution can account for the present diversity on earth, it is not the origin of humanity.
  10. I apologize that science has a dual nature, and just because you can have an iPhone doesn’t mean that you aren’t in danger of hell.
  11. I apologize for attacking the dominant paradigm, instead of just apologizing for mine.
  12. I apologize for having fun while I’m doing it.

If my ministry in any way contributes to your conversion and you repent and put your faith in Jesus Christ, when I see you in heaven, don’t expect me to apologize.


50 Replies to “Should I Apologize?”

  1. I exmnirpeeted with viewing your blog on my new iphone 4 and the layout does not seem to be right. Might want to check it out on WAP as well as it seems most cell phone layouts are not working with your web page.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Then present it that way with quotes. Else, no evidence is offered to the contrary — and thus the title is misleading. That said, people of faith are used to delivering misleading social opinion. Put quotes around that title with a citation that explains this — crackpot if you don’t.


      1. Humor? I don’t think people take your self-made title as “Oh, he’s just kidding…” No, I think people are more likely to say “He’s a delusional crackpot.”

        Liked by 1 person

    2. and you’re right but &#t8t0;2amazigh2” is not used in a lot of places how many amazigh speak just this language at home at work ? NO it doesn’t have even it’s own alphabet the “tiinagh” was created in 2003 and it’s origin is the old chinese most well educated amazigh are still learning ityes it’s a language from our past 1st oneyes it’s a culture in our countrybut still it’s not that popular otherwise it should be obligation for all moroccans to learn it

      Liked by 1 person

  2. By your estimation, Pangaea broke apart only 4220 years ago? By your claims, all continents could have drifted away at the rate of 1.28 km/year. That’s 11.5 feet a day! To me, this isn’t “drift.” There would have been a perpetual magnitude 10 earthquake everyday until now by adding that much land mass between continents. So why was there no mention of earthquakes when the earth was shifting 1.28km a year?

    To that, why did all the kangaroos go to Australia, and why did the polar bears only go north and the penguins only go south?

    If religion is irrelevant, would god exist if religion didn’t?

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Your problem is applying an average rate of movement. This was a catastrophic event that probably wiped out a large number of the population. Pangaea broke up and the continents moved into close to their current positions during the event. Your average rate of motion is meaningless


      1. You answer this by saying “probably”? You impart some form of geological explanation with nothing to back it? If we’re resting on probability, I can deal with that just fine. To that, it’s with higher probability that the earth wasn’t created in 6 days, and that the geological and scientific experts who study this very field probably have the correct answer of 175 million years. Why? because they have evidence to back it up. You’re “logic” is completely meaningless. But hey, if you want to use the bible as your source of science in the real world — that’s you right, just don’t ask anyone else with a shred of personal credibility to believe you.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Evidence isn’t contingent of personal interpretation. Evidence is based on proof, this is the only way data can be qualified as evidence — not the subjective ideals of one’s perspective.

        Unbelievable someone would get to this age with such misconceptions.

        Liked by 1 person

      1. Evidently, you know the answer would contradict your claim — so I’ll offer it despite your incredulous ignorance. Even if such an event happened (suspending all rational understanding of biology for each species), your explanation does not account for entropic dispersion, much less evidence any of those animals traversing those distances.

        Had it occurred that lions and tigers feed off other animals on the Ark? Just think: if there were only two of each animal species, how do any of the many predatorily animals survive if they can’t eat the only food they know: meat.

        What nonsense to invent more fantastic stories in supporting other fantastic stories. And when you run out of fantastic explanations, you always have the fix-all wild card “God works in mysterious ways.” It’s more likely the entire subjective social construct of religion that keeps the idea of God alive is just that: complete subjective fiction, endless fantasy without a shred of evidence.

        Liked by 1 person

      1. That’s exactly what is meant by circular arguments. A predetermined conclusion defines the experimental results, which, surprise, surprise, support the conclusion. It’s also called (in computer programming lingo) “Garbage in = garbage out.”


      2. Firstly, there is no evidence of a global flood.
        To adhere to your world-view, you have to ignore the evidence of radio active dating ( carbon AND uranium); the sequence of deposit strata and the fact that fossil changes are consistent with sedimentation layers and their sequence.
        You presumably have to ignore kid thousands of museums and universities, each with fossil collections in the thousands.
        What else do you have to ignore? The list is too long.

        You must be very highly qualified to dismiss the thousands of professors in universities worldwide. All of whom have massive and consistent evidence.


      3. The entire fossil record, Cambrian to Quaternary is evidence of the flood. I’m not ignoring any evidence, just interpreting it objectively. I will happily dismiss the fields of paleontology, paleobotany, anthropology etc. as misguided.
        Radiometric dating is inherently flawed as it is based on assuming something called the decay constant. This is merely a contrivance that is mandated by your paradigm.
        The Bible is true.
        If you believe unbelievers because you don’t want to believe… That’s circular reasoning too.


      4. My ‘paradigm’? I have one??

        That’s not the reason that I don’t believe in that book of contradictory short stories. Evidence is key here, not dogma.


      5. Okay, done that.
        Faith is not the best word, it’s ‘trust’.
        I can’t trust the delusional, corrupt and malicious religious leaders and the malicious and contradictory book they quote from.


      6. I use the evidence for timespan correctly. Geological periods are a mid interpretation of the relics of Noah’s flood. Radiometric dating is a contrivance based on flawed reasoning.
        I interpret the evidence for the heliocentric model correctly too. Objectively without bias.


      7. The fossil record, Cambrian to Quaternary, was deposited in Noah’s flood. Each bed of the strata represents a different habitat that was destroyed. Trilobites etc. dwelt on the ocean floor and so on.
        In the theory of evolution these different habitats are changed to stages of development, from simple to complex, and separated by time. The time needed is whatever you decide you need to accommodate all the other features of the paradigm. But, since the fossils have now been used as the basis for the assumption of evolution, they can’t be used as proof of it also. There’s your circularity.
        In heliocentricity parallax measurements are used as confirmation, however, the interpretation of parallax requires the assumption of both heliocentricity and that stars are Suns. It can’t prove either. One.
        Newton’s law of gravity is another example. The way it is applied to calculate the mass of the sun contains the assumption of heliocentricity, so it can’t be used as proof.


  3. Interesting. A scientific theist.

    In that case, a few questions if that’s ok.

    First, how did all the animals get from Noah’s Ark to Australia, north and south poles, and the Americas?

    Given religion is a social construct, can you explain scientific basis of any claims made within a social construct?

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Thanks for asking.
      1. Earth was originally one continent, Pangaea. This remained intact until after Babel when it broke up in the time of Peleg. This gave time for animal and human groups to spread onto all major land masses before tectonic upheaval took place.
      2. Religion is irrelevant. The only thing that actually matters is your personal relationship with God. Faith in Jesus Christ and confession of your sin are the only requirements for you to be reconciled to God and receive the free gift of everlasting life.


Leave a Reply to Matthew S. Lawrence Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: