Repent Labs

Many atheists claim that evolution is a proven scientific fact. If you disagree, they usually laugh, and go on to say things like:

“You’re one of those Bible thumpers aren’t you? You believe Noah and the arc too, right?”

But what if I told you that evolution was such a bad theory, that if an 8th grader presented it for his final project, he would get expelled from school for how irrational it was? Well, that’s true, and I’m going to show you why in the next few posts.

Today, we’re going to see that, on the Big Bang’s own terms, it refutes itself.

Recent Posts from the Devolved Series

* The Religion of Evolution: Devolved Part 1

* Billions of Years Nonsense: Devolved Part 2

Enjoying this post? Consider subscribing to get bold & bulletproof defenses for Christianity in your inbox every week

The Dilemma

We must ask our secular friends, did the universe have a beginning? Well, how many answers do we have?

* Yes, the Universe had a beginning

* No, the Universe is eternal

If you are trying to construct a secular (non-Christian) model of the history of the universe, where there is no creator, both answers violate the laws of thermodynamics.

Yes, It Had a Beginning, with No Creator!

If you hold that the universe had a beginning, and there was no creator, that means everything came from nothing.

So what existed before the beginning? Well the answer has to be nothing, because if everything began, and there was something before that beginning, whatever began wasn’t really the beginning, because some other type of matter existed before it.

So if you hold that the universe began in a secular model, you have to hold that before the universe, there was absolutely nothing. And then, for some reason, there was something.

Nothing 101

Before moving forward, I wanted to do a quick lesson on “nothing” just so we’re all on the same page.

* Nothing can only create nothing

* Nothing can do nothing

* From nothing, comes…nothing

Not only can you not go from nothing to everything, you can’t even go from nothing to something.

People like Lawrence Krauss have made books claiming they have a theory about how a universe came from nothing.

The problem is, they define nothing very differently than, well, what its definition is.

Krauss even admits this problem at the beginning of his book. When Krauss says the word “nothing”, he really means the universe came from:

an empty vacuum of space permeated with quantum fields that were capable of producing particles.

Well, that’s not nothing, is it? That’s what we layman people call “something.”

No, It’s Eternal, with No Creator!

As previously mentioned in part 2, the 2nd law of thermodynamics blows this theory out of the water. If the universe was eternal, we wouldn’t see stars.

Think about this for a minute, there are very hot stars surrounded by cold space. The heat in the universe is still very uneven.

However, the 2LOT shows us that the universe wants to even itself out equally. If the universe was eternal…all stars would have cooled off or blown up forever ago.

Since the universe hasn’t done that yet, by definition, it couldn’t have been here forever.

Back to the Future?

Some people argue the “Oscillating Universe” model. Basically, the theory states that there was the Big Bang, which expanded the universe. Then eventually, the universe will constrict in the opposite direction until it hits a single point. This process continues forever.

This entire idea doesn’t work at the foundation. Thermodynamics shows us that, if you go from a Big Bang, and everything is expanding, and entropy is increasing…

That means the later condition (expanded universe) had more entropy than its original condition (the bang).

To go from where we are today (expanded), to a constricted universe, would require a reversal of entropy, or basically, time moving backward.

This is not possible and violates thermodynamics. The universe could not have been present forever. It is not eternal.

No Options?

Well, in secular models, a universe with a beginning is quite problematic. But even worse, an eternal universe doesn’t work either.

With no secular options left, is there a third option?

Yes: The universe had a beginning, but a supernatural creator (the Triune God of scripture) brought it into being.

God is in control of space, time and matter, so he is not constrained to the laws of thermodynamics. This allows the initial creation to form without violating these laws.

Any atheistic theories of the history of the universe are simply not allowed due to their repeated violation of the LOT.

Let’s Be Generous

But let’s be generous for a minute. Let’s grant that the Big Bang happened just for a moment and see where it takes us.

Using the 2LOT, we can calculate the probability of how matter and energy is arranged.

* A low entropy system is less probable

* A high entropy system is more probable

So we can measure the entropy of a system, and that corresponds to the probability of that particular system actually existing.

Guess which one of these options the universe has today?

Low entropy

Mathematically Improbable

With such low entropy, our universe is mathematically improbable.

So even if something could create itself from nothing (which we already reviewed is impossible)…

Our universe is still extremely unlikely to be the result of a random unguided event like that.

If you’re proposing a model of the entire universe coming from random processes, we would see a universe that looks, well, quite random.

So with the Big Bang model, the universe is 14 billion years old. This means that, not only is entropy low today, but in the BB model, it was extremely low 14 billion years ago.

The Boltzmann Brain Paradox

Imagine someone came up to you and said “I was trying to think about where New York City came from, and I think I figured out how it came into existence. I think it popped into existence from nothing.”

You reply “Cities don’t pop into existence from nothing”

They reply “Well I think they can, I think it’s a great explanation”

So to illustrate to your friend how silly the proposal is, you reply

“NYC has buildings, cars, people, highways…you’re saying that the city with everything in it popped into existence. It would be much easier for, say, someone's wallet, complete with the leather back, credit cards etc. to have popped into existence.”

That is far more probable to have popped into existence vs the entire city…and even then, it’s still a ridiculous claim.

So how do we apply this to the Big Bang?

To put it simply, the Big Bang is so mathematically improbable based on the 2LOT, that it’s far more probable that the only thing that popped into existence is your brain.

You are just a floating brain with the right molecules in place to make it feel like you actually had a childhood and are a complete human.

Alan Guth, a cosmologist at MIT, pointed out that some calculations with this paradox result in an infinite number of free-floating brains for every normal brain, making it ‘infinitely unlikely for us to be normal brains’

This also holds true for the multiverse theory. If you grant infinite universes, you grant you’re a floating brain just by probability.

The Nail in the Coffin

The conclusion of the Big Bang, as it holds to its own standards, is that the universe doesn’t exist and that the Big Bang did not happen.

Can you imagine bringing forward a theory about the history of the universe that, on its own standards, denies the existence of the universe?

We’re Not Done

So the theory of evolution rests on the idea that we’ve had millions and billions of years, starting from the Big Bang. But as we’ve seen today, even if we grant that the Big Bang happened, it didn’t happen.

But that’s not the only problem with evolution. Next week, we’re going to talk about the problem of abiogenesis.

Enjoying this post? Consider becoming a paid subscriber to get access to:

* A monthly Q&A

* Exclusive content

* Helping us save babies by supporting our abortion ministry

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.repentlabs.com/subscribe

Many atheists claim that evolution is a proven scientific fact. If you disagree, they usually laugh, and go on to say things like:

“You’re one of those Bible thumpers aren’t you? You believe Noah and the arc too, right?”

But what if I told you that evolution was such a bad theory, that if an 8th grader presented it for his final project, he would get expelled from school for how irrational it was?

Well, that’s true, and I’m going to show you why in the next few posts. Today, we’re going to talk about how the evidence points to a young universe, not a 14-billion year old one.

Recent Posts from the Devolved Series

* The Religion of Evolution [Devolved Part 1]

Enjoying this post? Consider subscribing to get bold & bulletproof defenses for Christianity in your inbox every week

Violating the 1st Law

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy can be converted from one form to another with the interaction of heat, work and internal energy, but it cannot be created nor destroyed, under any circumstances.

Basically you can’t create energy, you can only use energy that is already there.

So where did our universe come from? Well, in secular models, the #1 rule is, you cannot have a creator or any purpose behind the beginning of the universe. In other words, our universe must come from nothing.

The problem with this model? You are violating the 1st law of thermodynamics at the largest scale at the beginning of your model.

Not only is this theory absurd because it claims something came from nothing, it’s claiming that everything came from nothing.

So the largest amount of energy in the history of the universe is created from nothing, but then for some reason, after that it’s impossible to do?

Violating the 2nd Law

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that entropy always increases.

Basically, hot things cool off. Imagine you walk into a room and a hot cup of coffee is on the table. How long has the coffee been there?

Well, not long, since the coffee is still hot. To put it crudely, the hotter something is, the “younger” it is.

The Moon is Active

The moon is not cool inside (yet), we actually see evidence of gas venting as well as recent volcanic deposits. This shows that the Moon has recent geological activity.

If the moon was billions of years old, the moon should have cooled off long ago.

Thomas Watters of the Smithsonian Institution said this:

“The whole idea that a 4.6 billion-year-old rocky body like the moon has managed to stay hot enough in the interior and produce this network of faults just flies in the face of conventional wisdom.”

Pluto is Active

Pluto is currently resurfacing (equivalent to volcanic activity), which means it is distributing material to even out its surface. But where is the source of energy for this?

Pluto does not have tidal flexing going on. According to secular models, Pluto should be cold and dead. But yet, it’s geologically active.

Alan Stern said

“Finding that Pluto is geologically active after 4.5 billion years - there’s not big enough typeface to write that in. It’s unbelievable.”

If the universe is thousands of years old, this is not a problem, but if its billions…it’s a huge problem.

The Stars Are Hot

Maybe the universe isn’t billions of years old, maybe its just eternal! Maybe it’s been here forever and we’re just floating in it!

Well, stars have not cooled off. Could stars have been there…forever?

Well no, if they were there forever, they would have cooled off or blew up forever ago.

If the universe was present forever ago, stars would not be here. The fact that we see stars tells us that the universe is not eternally old.

Well can new stars not form? Aside from the secular issues with this theory, star formation requires energy, of which there is a finite amount in our universe. If the universe had been there forever, there would no longer be energy for stars to form in the first place.

So if we can see that the universe is not eternally old with the 2LOT, then what does that mean? The universe had a beginning.

The Big Bang is Not an Answer

Many Christians actually endorse the Big Bang blindly because it’s one path to show the universe had a beginning.

No one has to hold to the Big Bang model to prove the universe had a beginning. This is great news considering the model itself is infested with holes and errors.

Want to prove the universe had a beginning? Do you see the sun during the day? Do you see the stars at night? Yes? There you go, the universe had a beginning.

We’re Not Done

So the theory of evolution rests on the idea that we’ve had millions and billions of years of history to work with. But as we’ve seen already, the evidence says otherwise. We have a young universe.

But that’s not the only problem with evolution. Next week, we’re going to see what happens if we grant that the Big Bang happened.

Enjoying this post? Consider becoming a paid subscriber to get access to:

* A monthly Q&A

* Exclusive content

* Helping us save babies by supporting our abortion ministry

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.repentlabs.com/subscribe

Many atheists claim that evolution is a proven scientific fact. If you disagree, they usually laugh, and go on to say things like:

“You’re one of those Bible thumpers aren’t you? You believe Noah and the arc too, right?”

Heck, I might even get these comments on this post ;)

* But what if I told you that evolution wasn’t a proven scientific fact?

* What if I told you that evolution wasn’t even a good theory?

What if I told you that evolution was such a bad theory, that if an 8th grader presented it for his final project, he would get expelled from school for how irrational it was.

Well, that’s all true, and I’m going to show you why in the next few posts. Today, I’m going to cover how evolution is a religion, not a scientific theory.

Enjoying this post? Consider becoming a paid subscriber to get access to:

* A monthly Q&A

* Exclusive content

* Helping us save babies by supporting our abortion ministry

1. What evolution are we talking about?

First, the evolution I’m talking about is called macro-evolution. This is the view that one species of animal transforms completely into another. Imagine a dinosaur turning into a bird over millions of years in order to survive. That’s what I’m talking about.

We are not talking about micro-evolution. Micro-evolution is when there’s a change of form or function within a species. Imagine a species of bird gets a sharper beak based on having kids with sharp beaks, that would be micro-evolution.

Micro-evolution is just what happens when some species of animals have more kids. But what about macro-evolution?

2. From fish to philosopher

When we talk evolution, most people think of Charles Darwin. But evolution did not come from Darwin, it was already present in ancient Greek philosophy. Anaximander, one of the earliest ionian philosophers was an evolutionist.

“For Anaximander (611 - 546 B. C. E) believed the world had arisen from an undifferentiated, indeterminate substance, the apeiron. The Earth, which had coalesced out of the apeiron, had been covered in water at one stage, with plants and animals arising from mud. Humans were not present at the earliest stages; they arose from fish…”

Evolution was, and always has been, a philosophy, not a scientific theory. Nobody observed something in nature scientifically and said “That’s it, its gotta be evolution!”

The truth is, every human from birth understands, without question, that God created the universe. We are without excuse:

19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

With Darwin’s work coming to a finish, later scientists had to work day and night to give the theory a cosmetic of respectability. If they could just make it look legit, they could go to bed at night telling themselves that God didn’t exist.

3. Evidence?

Do you remember science class when you were in high school? Do you remember some of the things that make a scientific theory a strong one?

Well, firstly, you would need evidence, right? If I went to my teacher and said “I think germs don’t exist, its all just a lie”, would he take my word for it? Of course not, he would ask me for evidence.

To the embarrassment of the evolutionists, there is no evidence for macro-evolution.

It’s simple, we’ve never observed a species turn into another species.

Take the fossil record for example. Do we find evidence of gradual development of species?

No, on the contrary we find:

* Sudden appearance of a fully complex life-form (no simpler versions prior)

* Stasis - that species stays the same form and doesn’t evolve or change.

In fact, there’s no evidence for the other parts of evolution either (we’ll get to that in the next posts). But that’s no fun is it? I thought we had something? I thought we had a way out of that whole “I have to obey God because he made me” thing.

So what are the evolutionists to do if science can’t help them? Politics.

One great example of evolution politics in high definition is the British natural history museum. In 1981, the museum created an exhibit around Darwin’s evolutionary theory.

The label included in the text that it was "One possible explanation" for the origin of life, as well as "not strictly scientific because it has not been empirically demonstrated"

Because of those 2 expressions, enough political pressure was produced that the museum had to remove any acknowledgement of the problems with Darwin’s theory.

4. Blind worship

But why? Why do people still push evolution? Why are scientists gripping onto the theory for dear life, clawing and scratching for it to be true when there is simply no observable, empirical evidence for it? Are we missing something?

Because people hate God. If evolution were true, we would have an explanation for the wonder and design of life coming from random, natural processes. Which means? We can do whatever we want, we’re just the ancestors of Broccoli. Who cares right?

As we’ll see in the next posts, the theory of evolution is simply an unsupported religion for people who need a non-God explanation for life. This is nothing new, in fact, Paul was dealing with this in the first century.

8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

Enjoying this post? Consider becoming a paid subscriber to get access to:

* A monthly Q&A

* Exclusive content

* Helping us save babies by supporting our abortion ministry

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.repentlabs.com/subscribe

If you deny God’s existence, you have no basis to get mad at anyone for anything, ever.

Intro

I’ve had conversations, some very heated, over Jesus and the inescapable existence of God. Many times, my atheist friends would talk with much anger, as if something was “unjust” with our conversation.

But...is there really anything good or bad if God doesn’t exist? That’s what we’re going to hash out today.

1. Defining Laws

First, let’s try to get a good definition of ‘Laws’

the system of rules which a particular community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties.

So there’s two key things we have here; rules, and enforcement. The rules are what guides our conduct, the enforcement is what makes sure we follow that conduct.

2. “Morality is Subjective Bro”

Many people say morality is subjective (just opinion) and completely based on the culture or society surrounding the person. Let’s test run this and see how it plays out ;)

Take an example, Hitler. We all know that Hitler was objectively wrong for slaughtering the Jewish people in world war 2. However, if morality was subjective by nature, and decided by cultures or majority agreement, Hitler would have been right.

There would be nothing objectively wrong about him slaughtering Jews, since that was the culture of the Nazis at the time.  So why do we act as if Hitler was a Monster?

Interestingly enough, in a popular debate about the existence of God, Dr. Stein, who is an atheist who holds to subjective morality based on societal consensus, was asked "What about Hitler's actions were wrong in your worldview?" He said this:

"Germany was part of the Western European tradition, it's not...Africa, or somewhere on Mars. They have the same Judeo-Christian background, and basically the same connection with the rest of the developed world, so, therefore, the standards of morality that have been worked out as consensus of that society apply to them too, …so even though morality is a consensus, it's not a consensus of 1 person, or 2 people, its a consensus of entire civilizations, and he cannot just arbitrarily do that, so what he did was evil and wrong."

So basically, Stein is asserting that since Germany was within the cultural boundary of the West and Europe, he ought to abide by the morality that was popular for that period.

A: Smuggling In An Objective Truth

Dr. Stein simply asserted that Germany ought to abide by the morality of it's nearest regions. Says who?

Why is Germany morally obligated to follow the consensus of its nearest cultural neighbors? Isn't morality subjective? There is no “ought” when things are subjective.

B: Time Destroys Morality

There is no reason anyone ought to comply with something that is subjective since it can change over time. What if all of Europe clearly told Hitler "Well, since you're close to us, you ought not to commit genocide, that is our morality you know!"

Hitler could easily just deny this, take over the entire region, and then change the law so that Genocide is ok.

Well, if that happened, is anyone right? Were the other countries right historically because, at that time, genocide was wrong? Or was Hitler objectively right because he conquered all of them, and brought in the latest morality, making genocide morally acceptable? It's just 2 opinions.

C: The Grey Area Problem

What if Hitler had been born in a country on the other side of the globe where slaughtering people of a different race was culturally acceptable and admirable?

When he sailed over to Germany to start the Nazi regime, would he then be wrong?

Is it the person's physical location that makes genocide wrong? Or is it their cultural background? Hitler killing someone in a different culture is fine but in Germany no way? There's no way to define this objectively.

3. “Morality is Objective, But Not Because of God Bro”

Usually, at this point skeptics will hold that morality is objective, but they cannot give God the credit, otherwise they’d be Christians ;) So here’s a few other theories people throw out there:

* We get morality from our Laws

* Humans make laws, using what they believe is right and wrong. But how do we judge which human gets it right? By what standard can I know with certainty one lawmaker is being just and another unjust. Slavery was legal. Is slavery good now?

* We get morality from nature

* Nature is a concept. Moral duties are only connected to a person. I am morally responsible to love my wife, I am not morally responsible to a rock. Why should I listen to nature? What has nature done for me?

* We get morality from wanting human flourishing / survival

* Why am I obligated to humanity? What has humanity done for me? Who cares about humanity, as long as Im happy?

* If I rob a bank thats a pretty sweet deal for me, I’m a millionaire now, whats the harm? It harms other people. So who do I care about more? Myself

4. God is the Answer

After trying to do backflips with all of this, you can see that it’s just not possible to have an unchanging moral standard that all humans are morally accountable to apart from God.

Every time you and I make a judgement about anything, it’s us expressing that law that is written on our hearts. We already know what’s right and wrong.

If you deny God’s existence, you have no basis to get mad at anyone for anything, ever.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.repentlabs.com/subscribe

I’ve talked before about the reasons why Abortion is not just wrong; it’s pure evil. But many pro-choice advocates will object to this so that they can continue their support of child murder.

One of the most common objections that is brought to the table is this:

“The fetus is not a human in the early stages of development, it’s just a clump of cells. Therefore, abortion is just a medical procedure and shouldn’t be seen as murder.”

1. Biology Disagrees

A. When Does Human Life Begin?

The first problem with this objection is that we know human life begins at conception. Basic biology tells us that human life begins at fertilization. It is at fertilization that a unique set of human DNA is created. The only difference between adults and a fertilized egg is a matter of form, not kind.

‘“At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature.”

"When Human Life Begins" - American College of Pediatricians – March 2017

The very statement “It’s not a human” is simply untrue; it is 100% a human at fertilization.

B. You’re a Clump of Cells Too

The irony of this objection is that, adult humans are also a clump of cells. Saying that a baby is “just a clump of cells” draws no difference between an adult and the baby.

You and I are not made up of anything different than what that child in the womb is made of.

2. What is it Then?

But hold on, let’s be generous for a second. What if we really didn’t know that it was a human at conception. Maybe it’s not? What if it isn’t a human yet?

Then what is it exactly?

If it’s not a human at the fetus stage, then what it is? A monkey? Do women make chickens in their womb now?

When the sperm meets the egg, does it create a bird for a small portion of time until the second trimester, and then it turns into a human?

If you’re going to say that the fertilized egg is not a human, you’re going to have to tell me exactly what it is. The egg has DNA, it is not some neutral chemical mixture that zaps into a baby with organs 3 months later. It is the first step of a gradual journey of maturing as a…you guessed it…human.

3. The Waiting Game

Let’s keep being generous though, I don’t want to stomp on this objection too hard now. What if it wasn’t a human? Let’s say that, we knew with 100% certainty that the fertilized egg was NOT a human.

Let’s say that it was just a clump of cells for 6 months and then, boom, it became a human.

Well…we know that when a women gets pregnant, we expect what to happen? A baby. We do not expect the fertilized egg to be destroyed. That doesn’t mean every pregnancy perfectly works out, but the normal everyday expectation is that a baby will be grown and eventually born.

That means that, even if the fertilized egg wasn’t a human, we all know that it WILL become a human. That means you are still guilty of preventing that life from happening naturally by your FREE choice. You are willingly killing that baby.

So, even if we give this person what they want, a clump of cells, this objection is still ridiculous.

4. When Do Humans Become Valuable?

But you know what, I really think I’m being harsh. I don’t want to make pro-choice advocates think I’m being unfair here. Let’s give them one more thing.

Let’s just say that the fertilized egg is not a human, and, it has no value at that stage. Theoretically, it’s perfectly acceptable to destroy it.

Let’s grant that the fetus doesn’t have any value.

When do they become valuable exactly?

* Is it when they are 4 months in the womb? 6 months? 9 months?

* Is it when they have enough organs developed?

* Is it when they have the ability to think?

* Is it when they leave the womb?

I mean what makes a human valuable in the first place?

God makes humans valuable. He made us in his own image at the creation of the world.

26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness. They will rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the livestock, the whole earth, and the creatures that crawl on the earth.” 

27 So God created man in his own image; 

he created him in the image of God; 

he created them male and female. 

Ge 1:26–27.

Since we know that human life is valuable, and we know human life starts at conception (when the sperm meets the egg), we know that destroying any human in the womb, regardless of age, is murder.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.repentlabs.com/subscribe

Introduction

On the final part of my 3-part series Evolution Absurdity, I’ll be talking about the final nail in the coffin for the theory of evolution; the problem of uniformity.

The Problem

Here is the problem of uniformity written out:

The universe is orderly and repeatable.If evolution were true, there would be no reason to trust that nature is orderly or repeatable.Therefore, evolution cannot be true.

Here’s the Recap of Points:

1. No Reason For Regulation

Science and the scientific method RELIES on induction. We should have a really good reason to trust it then, shouldn’t we? Yet, on the evolutionary view, there is no reason to trust that the future will be like the past. Gravity could change, the way I digest food could change, EVERYTHING is up for grabs.

2. Observation Isn’t an Answer

Just because things have always been repeatable does not mean they WILL be repeatable in the future. You need an independent justification WHY it will be regular, otherwise, you are blindly trusting that nature will “just be” regular.

3. Everything is a Miracle

If evolution were true, everything is possible. There are no bounds as to what could happen at any second of the day. And if everything is a miracle, why would evolutionists expect ANY regularity? its inconsistent.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.repentlabs.com/subscribe

A lot of people, both Christians and unbelievers, hold to the theory of evolution. For Christians, it’s a very simple Biblical debate, but what about unbelievers?

Isn’t evolution a proven scientific fact? It’s in all the textbooks, that means it’s true, right? In this series of posts, I’m going to cover the major problems that have faced the theory of evolution from the beginning.

Today I’ll be talking about the problem of abiogenesis

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.repentlabs.com/subscribe

A lot of people, both Christians and unbelievers, hold to the theory of evolution. For Christians, it’s a very simple Biblical debate, but what about unbelievers?

Isn’t evolution a proven scientific fact? It’s in all the textbooks, that means it’s true, right? In this series of posts, I’m going to cover the major problems that have faced the theory of evolution from the beginning.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.repentlabs.com/subscribe

So…how could a good God allow evil in the world. The mass shootings, the natural disasters, the rapists, the torturers…all of it? Even though this is one of the toughest objections to Christianity, it has a very simple answer.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.repentlabs.com/subscribe

This is a topic that can be hard to talk about as Christians, but the attitude behind it needs to be addressed. So...what does happen to those who simply never hear about Jesus?

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.repentlabs.com/subscribe