Why Akathleptos?

Why Akathleptos? Because it means Uncontainable. God is infinite. Hence, the whole universe cannot contain Him. The term also refers to the incomprehensibility of God. No man can know everything about God. We can know Him personally but not exhaustively, not even in Heaven.

Why Patmos? Because the church is increasingly marginalized and exiled from the culture.

Why Pen-Names? So the focus is on the words and not who wrote them. We prefer to let what we say stand on its own merit. There is precedent in church history for this - i.e., the elusive identity of Ambrosiaster who wrote in the 4th century A.D.

“Truth is so obscured nowadays, and lies so well established, that unless we love the truth we shall never recognize it." Blaise Pascal



Wednesday, March 9, 2016

Nothing Infuriates Evolutionists More Than Reference To A Creator

A scientific journal caved in to pressure from evolutionists and retracted an article about the human hand that mentions “the Creator” three times.

On January 5, the journal “PLOS ONE” published a peer-reviewed article titled “Biomechanical Characteristics of Hand Coordination in Grasping Activities of Daily Living.” The article, which was written by a team of Chinese and American scientists, explores the complex design and coordinated movements of the human hand.
“The human hand is an amazing instrument that can perform a multitude of functions,” the scientists wrote, later explaining that hand movements “are enabled by a highly complex structure, with 19 articulations, 31 muscles and more than 25 degrees of freedom.”

However, the scientists’ paper included something not frequently found in peer-reviewed scientific journals: multiple references to “the Creator.”

... Although the paper was published in early January, it wasn’t until last week that evolutionists noticed the references to the Creator and publicly called for the paper’s retraction.

“It’s not acceptable to publish an article like this to be full of assertions about a ‘creator,’ especially since it does nothing to back up this claim at all, and just highlights a poor understanding of evolution by the authors, and a very sloppy job done by both the reviewers and the editor,” one commenter wrote on the “PLOS ONE” website. “To salvage the reputation of this journal, this article should be retracted, and the future services of the reviewers and editor declined.”

Story is here.

No comments:

Post a Comment