The Making Of…

Tags

, , , , ,

Sometimes I don’t have a blog because Pounce eats it.

Quit blaming me.

Quit blaming me.

But this time, I’ve been busy planning and making my book trailer for Faith Seekers (out soon). Of course, I had a lot of help.

Here’s my proof.

My bro Kenny, the filmster

My bro Kenny, the filmster

 

Me and Cheyenne, My "Hannah". One Awesome Teen.

Me and Cheyenne, My “Hannah”. One Awesome Teen.

 

Why are we filming in the creepy woods? Because I love stories with a good dose of creepy. Happy Monday, and see you  next week.

To Build Your Story

Tags

, , , , ,

I am my childhood home. Just like the near-decade it took for my parents to build the brick and mortar one, I’m still nailing on sturdy layers of skin, and collecting enough materials to house all I was designed to be.

I loved the house my parents made. There was a built-in bookshelf in the hallway where volumes of all kinds graced us as we dragged to bed each night, and began each day again. I liked to thumb through the older books, mainly because they came from my dad’s life before me. Before I knew him as Daddy, before he laid his rope on his saddle to begin a family.

One of these books intrigued me, not because of the cover, or the name of the author, but because of the author’s confession on the first page. He was bold G1about his lack of education, his weakness when it came to grammar, and all those things you’d think a writer should master before he showed his work to the world.

I thumbed through the story—it was a novel for grown-ups—and in that season of my youth, I needed a grand collection of illustrations before I would cozy up to a book, but I promised to get back to that book someday. A writer who can’t spell but still published a book must surely have a good story to tell.

I was reminded of that book recently as I scrolled through a few amazon reviews. I picked a few books that I adore, and skimmed through the myriad opinions posted underneath the beautiful covers. What does a review tell about a book? That depends largely on the reviewer and what season-of-life they’re going through as they approach a story, but there is one thing that stands out to me: There are those with critical natures—dissecting a book until it becomes more of a biology experiment than someone’s art—and those who just want a good story.

Like most authors, I approach the release of my own book with lots of excitement, and a good dose of trepidation. My education doesn’t go beyond junior college, I’m still figuring out all rules of grammar (a big thank-you to my editor, Michelle,), and my book is not perfect. But I really just want to tell people a good story.

How long do we wait to put our work out there, anyway? Despite the perfection the world demands, we will never attain that which is beyond the grasp of a fallible human being.

Only God can do that.

Is criticism helpful, and can you use it to shape your art for the better? Then, by all means, grab it and build yourself a little stronger. But if it separates you from you, well…that’s no better than a termite infestation.

When I went back to look for that old book, it was gone. It was probably loaned out, or was stored to make room for newer volumes—but I can still smell the dusty pages, still hear the voice of that author, offering us all he had. And that’s enough to remind me that it’s okay to be imperfect.

The Songbird

Tags

, , , , , , ,

I never liked caged birds until I met Sweetie. She sat near the entrance in Helen’s apartment living room at the retirement place. Helen loved her, spoke tenderly to her as if she were a diamond on a pedestal. But all I saw was a beautiful creature unable to spread her wings.

Helen was one of my favorites. She was cheerful, tiny—she could have been a little bird herself with her small frame and trill voice—and I never had to worry about gripes or criticisms with her. When I saw her approaching my desk, I knew she’d bring me a smile and a kind word. That was what I needed as I was stuck between a job and a career—just someone to talk to me like I was more than just the staff.

Helen called me in a panic one evening. Sweetie had escaped her cage and 100_1053damaged her wing when she flew through the apartment. I’d never had a caged bird, what was I supposed to do? Birds are supposed to be flying without borders—no wonder Sweetie went for a freedom flight. And this was far outside my job description …but it was Helen.

I put up my “Be Right Back” sign and rushed to Helen’s apartment. It probably took us a good thirty minutes to settle the feathers. Sweetie had cut her wing. I called my husband who had a bird once, and he gave me some instructions on how to treat Sweetie. I found what I needed in Helen’s bathroom and fixed Sweetie right up. “Hope you enjoyed your freedom”, I thought, but Helen gushed over her like she was family. I saw how Helen looked at that little thing. I look at my children the same way when my heart overflows with love for them.

A few years later Helen had to move to the Assisted Living side. Her mind began to scatter a little too much. Her spirits dropped and she didn’t come out of her new place much—but she had her bird. She and Sweetie became inseparable, and Helen took her, cage and all, when she went out for the day, usually with family.

My friend would lose her patience, and eventually her smile, but she kept a firm grip on Sweetie’s cage wherever she went. I’m not sure why she held on so tightly to her bird. But I think she needed someone to sing to her. I think she needed Sweetie to remind her that despite the cage her failing mind wrapped around her, there was still joy out there somewhere.

Maybe when all of us walk through those barred places, all we need is for someone to remind us of the joy out there.

“So with you: Now is your time of grief, but I will see you again and you will rejoice, and no one will take away your joy.” John 16:22

Zebra’s Don’t Have Monkeys

Tags

, , , ,

Happy Monday! Willow Dressel is back today, continuing her series on biblical skeptics. The beginning of her series started here.

 

SCIENCE, MORAL, SPIRITUAL AND BIBLICAL SKEPTICS
PART III
SCIENCE-MUTATION AND NATURAL SELECTION

Hello again!

I’m back with more information on the movie God’s Not Dead. If you recall, in the last blog covering this subject I identified the root idea “The natural world is all there is”, and the probing question “How much faith is required for that belief?”. We also went over quite a few red flag words. Let’s do a quick review:

In short information is non-physical and does not arise out of material; and our minds have the power of intentionality⎯our brains are just the medium for communicating it; and only mind, not matter, can generate meaningful information. Pretty profound stuff, especially when you try to put random and chance in there. Hmmm, just what kind of meaningful information could random and chance KennytheTiger IIIblogproduce? The “earliest and simplest” single cell organism that is made up of a series of complex systems? I think not! But sadly evolutionists believe that mutation and natural selection can generate, by chance and randomness, the meaningful information that DNA carries and the highly complex system of the DNA itself. Let’s take a closer look…

Mutation: what the science skeptic means when he/she refers to mutation is the random genetic improvements passed on from one generation to the next that allows an organism to move up the “evolutionary ladder” (or tree), becoming, according to their theory, more complex. The plain and simple fact is that mutations can only degrade or rearrange existing genetic information. Mutation cannot generate new information. So the probing question to ask anyone who is stuck on mutation leading to new species is–can mutations generate new material and new information, that is new DNA with new coding.
DnaStrand IIIblogEvolutionists believe so. They cling to “beneficial” mutations, such as malaria-resistant sickle cells and antibiotic-resistant bacteria, to try to prove their point. However, this really is a moot point because no new information or DNA is produced by mutations even though they claim that mutations are a naturalistic way that introduces DNA into an organism. They cling so adamantly to this because they need a way for creatures to evolve into something new. The other fact evolutionists either ignore or haven’t thought it through thoroughly is that mutations have harmful side affects such as severe anemia and even death in the case of sickle cell, and huge genetic information loss in the case of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
You see, “genes are like sequences of letters (codes) that act as blueprints and instructions for a creature’s form and functions. A genetic mutation is analogous to the following sequence of letters:
IWANTTOEVOLVE = the normal gene
IWaNtToEVOLVe = mutation (degraded)
OVATEVNOTLWIE = mutation (rearranged)
oVaTEVNOtLWIe = mutation (degraded and rearranged)
“No matter how you degrade or rearrange the message “IWANTTOEVOLVE”, you either get IWANTTOEVOLVE with slight modifications or you get gibberish. No new letters arise to create a new, more complex message.
“In the same way…suppose you have the blueprints for a Mercedes Benz. Could you repeatedly photocopy them hoping that a copy one hundred (or a million) generations later would randomly accumulate spots and smudges that transformed it into blueprints for the Space Shuttle or even an upgraded design for the Mercedes? The blueprint quality would get worse, not better, the more it was duplicated.
Mutations are incapable of generating new genetic information. But evolutionists hold out faith that the hero of their theory, natural selection, can make it all work out.”1

Natural Selection: what the science skeptic means by natural selection is that the animals with adaptable traits survive (survival of the fittest) to pass on their genes. And animals with less adaptable genes die out. They believe that is the method or system by which increasingly organized and complex creatures come into being. It is true that natural selection (aka survival of the fittest) does occur. However this process has nothing to do with accumulating complexity, becoming more complex, or changing one species into another. In other words natural selection describes a process (adaptation of existing information), not the introduction of new information (DNA coding). “The important thing to note about natural selection is that it is a process of subtraction, not addition. It streamlines creatures for better survival in their existing environment by removing traits less suited for that environment…It cannot collect, assemble, or create new genetic features (new DNA) required to transform one kind of creature into a different kind that can survive in at completely different environment.
Turtles, IIIBLog“A mosquito population can survive the threat of insecticide because of what it loses, not what it gains. Mosquitoes with a genetic weakness toward a particular insecticide die off. But the surviving, resistant mosquitoes become the new core population for a “stronger” next generation. (They may be stronger only against the original insecticide but vulnerable in other ways.) Is this new resistant group a sign that the mosquitoes are breaking the bonds of mosquitohood and evolving into a new creature? No. Their mosquito DNA dictates that they will remain mosquitoes. This new group has been “selected” to survive because it has lost the weak trait by losing the weak members of the group that carried it, not by evolving a new trait. The insecticide merely exposes a genetic resistance that these mosquitoes had all along.”2
The funny thing is, is that EVERYBODY gets this process with dogs (or horses, cats, etc). Nobody thinks that a Chihuahua will evolve (through breeding) into a bat or a monkey or another new type of animal. EVERYBODY knows you breed animals for certain traits, a lap dog for example. Or a racing horse, or hairless cat. EVERYBODY, including evolutionists know we can’t breed these animals into some new species. The fact is, that dogs remain dogs, horses remain horses, cats remain cats no matter how streamlined they have become for their environment.

I encourage you this week to look around at the world you live in. Do you see any familiar animals, or people for that matter, having young that aren’t of the parent species? I would bet my life that the answer is no. And scripture backs it up. Listen to 1 Corinthians 15:39; “All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.” If you read further, (verses 37-44) you will find even more references to major distinctive realms including botanical (God giveth…to every seed his own body.), physical (There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another), astral: (There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory), and spiritual: (There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body).

God has provided for everything…we just need to open our eyes and hearts and trust Him!

God bless and take care!
Willow Dressel

References:
Foster, Bill. “Meet the Skeptic, A Field Guide to Faith Conversations.” Master Books, Green Forest, AR, 2012. Pp 97-107. 1, 2 pg. 107-111.
3www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/weeks-sky-glance-april-1826

Superheros and Authentic Fashion

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Parenting is perpetual construction. It’s the work truck driving adjacent the joy curb, always working—reworking, and an occasional hopping out to stretch the legs. But there is no sabbatical for moms and dads. If there’s not someone in the lane next to you telling you how to drive, it’s yourself—sometimes I lay awake, going over my list of speed bumps:

I said too much there. I didn’t say enough here. I focused too much on the dirty house today. I’m not that mother who can multitask her child and the whole school at the same time—and to be perfectly honest, I don’t want to be—that would be as exciting as doing a math test.

But amidst all the chaos, there are two things I feel good about:

My kids know that Jesus is the only real Superhero.
I don’t make them match their clothes.

Wait-what? Yes, I’m proud of the fact that I let them wear fuchsia polka dots with camouflage pants. Stripes with crazy patterns. A spiderman shirt with batman pants (so as I am writing this, Microsoft word wants me to capitalize spiderman, but not batman—what’s up with that?).

Anyway, why do I let them walk in public looking like they dressed themselves? Because they don’t need to dress for others approval. They need to know it’s okay to be them. They’ll face enough pressure from their peers in a few years—I want them to feel good about making their own choices because they were made like this (by the real Superhero):

For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. Psalm 139:13-14

They weren’t knit together by Prada’s marketing team. They weren’t wonderfully made to feel pressured to have surgeons nip and tuck their uniqueness away.

If God’s works are wonderful…they are already beautiful. They need

My little beauty

My little beauty

encouragement to be them. Who am I to make them feel like they have to fit my standards of beauty, or the standards of the fashion industry, or Hollywood?

Here’s an excerpt from Alissa Quart in her book Branded:

“…many of the teens and tweens I have come across who are drenched in name-brand merchandise are slightly awkward or overweight or not conventionally pretty. While many teenagers are branded, the ones most obsessed with brand names feel they have a lack that only superbranding will cover over and insure against social ruin.”

And it all starts with drawing attention to their appearance.

I listened to an interview at my mom’s group a few weeks ago. Wisdom from a former Victoria’s Secret Model. She said the only reason she got into the modeling industry (and nude modeling) was because her father encouraged her in only one thing: her looks. It took her decades to realize that she had real value.

The only One children need to be concerned with pleasing is the Superhero who laid down His life for them. If they ask you why God made them look a certain way, tell them:

“God saw all that He made, and it was very good.” Genesis 1:31 (emphasis mine)

Rolling with my Peeps

Tags

, , ,

This past week was One Giant Explosion of Awesomeness. I’m still picking confetti out of my hair. Here’s what I learned:

Just because the Wildlife Biologist you’re with is carrying a giant can of bear mace, and the bear’s den has been has been flooded, does not mean you will encounter a large, angry bear. Phew! Research trip=success

 

100_3635

Meeting really famous people can make me a little nervous, but Bill Myers is delightfully humble. And awesomely talented. He also shares my passion for giving YA Christians some good, relateable entertainment. Check out his latest project (and consider supporting) here.

Photo with Bill Meyers

Lastly, you really don’t need name tags at twenty-year high school reunions. We don’t look that different. But I’m still confused about the hot dog vendor watching us from the shadowy corner. Hmmm.

Class reunion photo

What’s on your calendar of events? Tell us in the comments.

The Outsiders

Tags

, , , , , , ,

There is a field of beautiful weeds next to my daughter’s school. I pull in line alongside it every day with the other parents, creeping along for my turn to pick up my child. The weeds are quite tall now, catching every breeze and butterfly that comes its way. There is the occasional set of tire tracks mushed into the field from a driver who couldn’t wait for the line to move. The school has tried to purchase it in hopes to expand, but that rectangle of dirt and brush is far too pricey.

The land is surrounded on one side by old trees, firmly rooted into the ground in the yards of neighbors. They tower above the weeds, holding court in their superior standing of shade-givers.

But when the light hits the weeds just right, you can see gold. While the sun outlines the trees like halos of honey, the weeds are given the full force of the OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAlight, casting a breathtaking beauty upon them. They are not weeds in this moment, but the light so many artists try to capture in their paintings. When I finally understood the value of a weed, it changed my thinking forever.

Although not everyone waits around to witness their transformation.

As I approach my 20th year high school reunion, I think about the weeds and wonder how many of us will walk in feeling like we’re pulling a cart-ful of them, and how many will feel like the trees that look down on them. Are my adornments as beautiful—do my shoulders reach as high as the others?

Does the weight of my cart outweigh those of the others?

Despite the joy of seeing old friends, successes will be measured on this day. Classmates will walk in with lists: the accomplishments, and the list that we probably won’t talk about –the failed relationships, losses of all kinds, mistakes.

But the light shines just as bright on our carts of weeds. They are what make us work harder, gain wisdom, and grow beautifully. God didn’t come for the best of the best after all.

I‘m here inviting outsiders, not insiders – an invitation to a changed life, changed inside and out.” Luke 5:32 The Message

Those of us in the weed fields become part of God’s masterpiece—too unworthy in the eyes of those who miss the light—too valuable for the wallets of the insiders.

Zombies and the In-Between

Tags

, , , ,

My first year of college felt like a giant state of limbo. I still lived at home, I usually carpooled, and I couldn’t concentrate on a single piece of homework—except a few glorious moments in English class and about 2/3ds of my 2D design class. Otherwise, my feet were squirming with antsyness, impatient for my next step into independence.

My friend, Laurin, was in the same boat, traveling with me on cracked Arizona roads to class and back. One of our favorite things to do in this in-between state was to people watch.

Nowadays, most people have their ears to phones, or their gaze falls to their laps as they pretend they’re not texting while driving—but I want to talk about the IMG_4047times before we all became cell phone zombies—when people kept their eyes wide open and allowed life to overflow from the driver’s seat.

My observations from the ford pickup truck:

The opera singer.
These driver’s live in joy, tilting their heads and necks in the most awkward angles to “feel it.” They let their mouths drop open as if catching the mosquitoes that go splat on their windshield, but no—they’re not crazy, just happy. They must either love their jobs, love leaving their jobs, or are able to be content in that place in-between.

The Nose Pickers.
Your windshield is see-through, people. However, if you really don’t care then I don’t either. Except for the entertainment. I like to laugh while driving. Unless I’m on the way to lunch. Ew.

The Unexpressionist.
I assume you’re either a deep thinker—oblivious to the world around you–or your life is boring.
For the Thinker: Life is indeed profound and full of wild metaphors, but my car is not one of them—when traveling, please keep your attention on the road.
For the Bored: Life is not one bit boring. You might want to take the “back roads” just to remind yourself of this.

The smiler-waver on, “I’ll wait for you“-enthusiastic drivers.

You spread joy. Keep it up.

The bad news: Too many people don’t take advantage of the art of driver’s-seat-living anymore. We have become cell-phone zombies, the walking unpresent, the “who cares what God might be painting in this moment”, I-need-to-be-in-touch-with-the-next-moment right now types.

That’s absolutely the best thing to do if you don’t want to go anywhere.

Those in-between moments are the only things that will prepare you for the next road.
It’s the windshield that protects you from going into something you’re not ready for yet.

Otherwise, you may end up with a mouth full of bugs.

Drive awesome.

SCIENCE, MORAL, SPIRITUAL AND BIBLICAL SKEPTICS PART II

Tags

, , , , , ,

Hi all! Willow’s back today, continuing her blog on the concepts introduced in the movie, God’s Not Dead. For the start of the series, go here.

SCIENCE

Hello once again!

It is such a pleasure to be able to once again be a guest on Sherry’s blog. Have any more of you been able to see the movie “God’s Not Dead?” It’s ok if you haven’t, but if you have, you will remember some of what we are about to discuss.
One of the major issues the professor had against God, and what he tried to use against Josh, the young man who defended his faith, were 1st photo Sep 15 blogobjections from a scientific viewpoint. So let’s continue to look into not only defending our faith, but helping to lead others to the truth.
If you remember from the first week, we discovered the root idea behind most scientific objections is “The natural world is all there is.” And the probing question is “How much faith is required for that belief?” “It is important to point out to the skeptic that his naturalistic view invokes supernatural power as much as yours (God) does. The big difference is that naturalism puts faith in the absurd-nature doing supernatural things-while a theistic worldview merely puts faith in the unseen-a cause beyond nature that has left evidence in nature of its presence.”1
What the professor didn’t understand is that science has already proved that nature is unable to create matter, space or time–for nature to do so, it would have to go against the First Law of Thermodynamics (matter can neither be created nor destroyed but it can change form), Second Laws of Thermodynamics (everything goes from a state of order to disorder, i.e. decay, etc) the Law of Biogenetic (life cannot come from non-life; no spontaneous generation), Mathematical probability (shows evolution NEVER could have occurred), The fossil record ( it holds no transitional forms), just to name a few facts. In other words, nature would have to have supernatural powers, like God. I have even run into those people who believe in a powerful “Mother Nature” or “Gaia”, in other words 2nd photo Sep 15 blognature can do godlike things. Yet they are adamantly against even the thought of an Intelligent Designer⎯the Creator God. It is a far more logical explanation to believe in the unseen (God) than what has already been proven cannot happen.
As you can see one of the biggest problems with the science skeptic is that they tend to divorce reason from faith. This is exactly where the professor in the movie stood. And he didn’t even know it. Let’s take another example of this. The science skeptic tend to emphasize natural selection and mutation can create different forms of life (evolution). So when a scientist claims there is evidence that a life form has evolved from one species into another, what you can point out is that both of these process create nothing new. These processes only remove or rearrange what is already present (in the genes). Speciation–the changing of one species into another, and adaptation which is changes within a species, are two vastly different processes. Speciation is found only in the textbooks. Adaptation is found everywhere. What the scientific skeptic has really done is exchange one source of faith for another.
Here are just a few examples of the extreme faith some secular scientists have: First, in regards to life originating from non-life (spontaneous generation);
“One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here 3rd photo Sep. 15 blogwe are⎯as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.” -Harvard biochemist, Nobel Laureate, and evolutionist Georg Wald. The Design Inference. Cambridge University Press, 1998, pg. 55. Google Book Search. 27 Aug. 2008. Note the words impossible and believe. Both determine that this is a statement of faith, not science.
In regards to evolution; “Imaginations run riot in conjuring up an image of our most ancient ancestor–the creature that gave rise to both apes and humans. This ancestor is not apparent in ape or human anatomy nor in the fossil record. Anatomy and the fossil record cannot be relied upon for evolutionary lineages. Yet paleontologists persist in doing just this.” -Anthropologists and evolutionists, J. Lowenstein and Adrienne Zihlman, Ph.D. “The Invisible Ape.” New Scientist/ 120(1641) 1988:56,57. These are statements from atheists, but look at all the highlighted words in this statement….easy to see this is a belief and not science.
Yet sad to say statements like these are found in many “scientific” journals and conferences. One of the biggest reasons the science skeptics fool themselves is because they have their own definition about certain words. This has come about mostly through blind faith and ignorance. The following are some red flag words (see if you remember how many of them the professor from the movie used):
The Big Bang. The skeptic means that the uncaused beginning of the 4th photo Sep. 15 bloguniverse happened suddenly based on the idea that the cosmos (stars, galaxies, etc.) is still expanding which suggests that they were once together in a single location. Don’t be intimidated by this. They are avoiding the real issue which is: What started the big bang to begin with? And were did everything inside of this ‘exploding dot’ come from? And were did the space that the dot is floating around in come from?
Evolution. The skeptic can mean one of two things: 1) change over time. Or 2) the ability of life forms (and even non-life forms) to transform into entirely different species. There are also two different types of evolution. “Microevolution–over a few generations, a mosquito population becomes resistant to insecticide (the resistant genes were present to begin with). And Macroevolution–over a few million years, a type of lizard gradually becomes a bird (new genetic information is developed or created from mutation and natural selection. Information, mutation and natural selection are red flag words as well so lets define them too.
Information. When the skeptic speaks of the word information, he means that is how humans describe the order we see in living things that only look designed. Clarify to the skeptic that information is both complex and specified and can not happen at random. For example, if you dump out a cupful of scrabble letters, there is a chance it might produce the word G-O-D. But there is no chance that it would produce the Gettysburg Address (a short speech) or even one sentence of it. If you saw the Gettysburg address spelled out on the floor you would come to the correct conclusion that it was intentional….in other words, designed. “We know it is designed because we instinctively know that words are systems of letters; sentences are systems of words; paragraphs are systems of sentences; and speeches are systems of paragraphs. Such systems cannot form without foresight, planning, and intention. In other words, a system–not an independent part–is the most basic unit of any complex, meaningful structure…But evolutionists would like us to believe that complex systems such as those found in living things arose part-by-part….Don’t let an evolutionist off the hook who suggests that life evolved from ‘simple beginnings’–there is no such thing. The beginnings would have to be complex also. The most primitive, single-celled bacteria that evolutionists say began life on earth would have needed working systems including some form of digestive system and reproductive system from the very beginning. Such systems are immensely complex.”2
Information is non-physical and does not arise out of material. Materials such as ink, paper, pens, pencils, discs, computer chips and DNA molecules are only carriers of information. “For example, the information in the Gettysburg Address exists outside of the paper and ink Lincoln used to write it. It could exist just as well on an audio CD, on the internet, or engraved in stone….but it did not begin in these materials; it began in Abraham Lincoln’s mind.
“An evolutionist might say, ‘But Lincoln’s mind is merely reactions of brain chemicals.’ In other words, Lincoln’s mind was the result of random, material (chemical) causes. But this would mean that the Gettysburg Address is the result of random, material causes too because it came from Lincoln’s mind. But as we have discussed, complex systems such as speeches (not to mention human brains) don’t arise out of randomness; they are the product of intention and planning (design). This means that Lincoln’s mind and ours are something more than just chemicals. Our minds have the power of intentionality; our brains are the medium for communicating it.
“Just as the Gettysburg Address is not the product of paper and ink, DNA, the blueprint for living things, is not the product of a random soup of chemicals compounds. By all accounts, it is a code or language so complex that no material causes could have created it; it demands an author. Only mind, not matter, can generate meaningful information.”3
Even though it is evident that there is a difference between information and material, evolutionists truly believe that the natural world only looks designed. “They maintain that mutation and natural selection are able to generate the DNA (even though its a highly complex system) required to create new species.”4 (Emphasis mine.)
Ahhh…and the professor thought himself smart, but he didn’t even know the difference between matter and mind!
We will wait to explain mutation and natural selection in more detail next time.

Thank you Sherry for your continued invitation!
God bless and be healthy!
Willow Dressel

References;
1-4Foster, Bill. “Meet the Skeptic, A Field Guide to Faith Conversations.” Master Books, Green Forest, AR, 2012. Pp 87-107.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 107 other followers