|
Evolutionism, Creationism, and the Sabbath
William Diehl
I advise the reading of God's holy word, the Bible, and believe it for what it says. "In six days God created heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them." Arguments over interpretation of empirical data as to the origin of life and the cosmos which exists only in the present can be endless even among evolutionists themselves. The fact is that all the data which we have to base our cosmology theories on exists in the present.
Those who are so sure that the word of God is inaccurate are basing their hypothetical assumptions on events that may or may not have taken place in the past. My bias is to believe the Bible as authoritative in matters of origins and history. Those who reject this account as authoritative will never be able to accept the creation account and the fall of Man, the entrance of sin and death and suffering, and the Noahic Flood as a true and factual account of events that took place in the past which explain the condition of the world in the present. They will haggle and insult and belittle in order to reassure themselves that they are correct and that the Creator God and Judge and Savior of the Bible are mythological.
The fact is that if the Bible is true, those atheistic evolutionists who reject its claims are eternally lost and doomed to eternal destruction along with the Devil and his angels and all those who align themselves in unbelief. Thus there is a tremendous "motivation" for the evolutionists to disprove the creationist: if the creationists are correct, the evolutionist will feel the full force of the just wrath of God against the sin of unbelief. As Christ said, "If you will not believe Moses, neither will you believe me." And also, "When the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?" And also as Paul advised Timothy, "keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science (knowledge or Gnosticism, a false belief system) falsely so called, which some professing have erred concerning the faith."
The fact is that from viewing the earlier posts of those on this forum, I see that it is the evolutionists here who not only disbelieve the creation account of Genesis, they also disbelieve that Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God who came into the world to die upon the cross to bear the guilt and sin of the world by shedding his blood for our sins. They endlessly haggle about every fundamental salvation doctrine of the historic Christian faith and ask such inane questions as "how do you define the word 'Christian'" and define "inerrant" and challenge the basic Bible teaching that Adam was created as an adult human being. These people have a perverse love to endlessly debate to show others how well they can refute the "foolishness" of the word of God and its obvious implications. God's eye is ever upon those pompous puffed up fools who think they are wiser than the word of God. These sophists and secular humanists will have their part with the unbelievers and the Saducees of Christ's era. The "woes" pronounced upon the Saducees of Christ's day will fall upon those who fill up the measure of their iniquity today. The modern sons of the Saducees will perish with their ancient fathers.
The theory of relativity depends upon the assumption that the speed of light has always been at 186,000 miles/second as a constant. If the speed of light were instantaneous at the creation of the world, then all the universe would have been in the same time zone. Reality is NOT relative to me and you, it is relative to God as the true reality of existence. All reality is "relative" to God's presence and existence, not your or my point and time in the universe.
The theory of theistic evolution depends upon whether God used eons of time, suffering, death, and failure to produce the universe and life forms we have today as opposed to Biblical creationism which teaches that God created a perfect, sinless, deathless universe in 6 literal days and rested on the Sabbath. Hence the universe and life on earth that we find today is in a state of decline and entropy. Energy in the universe has wound down.
"And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment." Hebrews 1:10-11
The "laws" of physics today are not the "laws" of physics before the fall of Man. The entire created realm changed at the fall and we cannot assume the laws of physics that are in effect today are identically the same as at creation.
If theistic evolution was God's mode of creating then His moral law against murder, stealing, adultery, lying, and coveting is contrary to the "law" of survival of the strongest and the rule of the jungle. This is exactly what society is coming to as it adopts the ethic of biological and social evolution which Hitler and Stalin embraced. People will get the society and government that they believe in just as the Russians and the Germans got the oppression, lawlessness, injustice, and fear that they wanted to impose upon the world.
If theistic evolution is true then the Sabbath has no meaning or relevancy. I make no apology for the fact that God will destroy those who do not believe His word and who call God a liar. The same issue of the Garden of Eden is being played out today — the reliability of the word of God. Satan said, "Hath not God said 'XYZ'? but I say 'ABC......". Moses was no fool who spouted mythology and fable. God is not in the business of deception and prevarication. Christ Himself accepted the creation account. He is either the LORD or He is a lunatic. You and I make the choice of whom we will believe — God and Christ who were there at the moment of creation or puffed up sinful proud unbelieving evolutionary "scientists" who think they can find out the whys, and ways, and wherefores of how God created the universe (theistic evolutionists) or the universe created itself (atheistic evolutionists) in the past by studying the present sin-cursed world of today.
Bill
———————————
To XXX,
I appreciate your valiant efforts to harmonize the Bible with the "apparent" old age of the universe. I don't for a moment question your motives. The problem is however that those who wish to put gaps in the six days of creation of the universe are not being true to the texts of the Genesis account. There is no textual justification to interpret the creation of the sun, moon, and stars during a "gap" or as an "aside" to the six day account. The Hebrew does not allow the view that the stars on the fourth day were "made to appear as the haze or mist cleared" as some well meaning interpreters wish to advocate. The Hebrew does not allow the view that the "empty and without form" earth and the dark sea of Genesis 1:1 is separate from the creative act of creating light on the first day. How can one have a preexisting universe of stars and galaxies without light? Were all these stars and galaxies out there in space existing without light?. So the problem is much broader than whether an unformed earth and sea existed before the first day of creation. The problem is also whether there was light in the universe and on the unformed earth prior to the first creation day. Could not the light from the presumed preexisting stars reach the unformed earth prior to the first day?
The Genesis account is obviously stating that matter and energy were created on the first day of creation and that prior to the creation week there was no matter or energy or time or universe. Only God and the angels existed prior to the creation week.
I am open to textual evidence to the contrary.
———————————
To JJJJJJ,
I am really encouraged by your zeal for the Lord (albeit misplaced zeal). The fact is however that there aren't ANY gaps in, on, before, after, above, or below the six day account of creation in Genesis. They just are not there as any Hebrew scholar will tell you!! You may wish that they were there, but wishing does not make it so!!!
The creation account is in the form of statements linked by "and" between each statement. This is an indication in the Hebrew that the narrative account is all taking place in succession without any interruption. "In the beginning" refers to the beginning of the first day, not some time 5 to 12 million years BEFORE the first day!! The "and" could and probably should be translated "and then"!!! Look at the text:
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. AND the earth was without form, and void; AND darkness was upon the face of the deep. AND the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. AND God said, Let there be light: and there was light. AND God saw the light, that it was good: AND God divided the light from the darkness. AND God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. AND the evening and the morning were the first day. AND God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. AND God made the firmament, AND divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: AND it was so. AND God called the firmament Heaven. AND the evening and the morning were the second day." And on and on and on until the seventh day (Yom) when God rested (ceased) from His creating.
I do NOT believe that there were inhabited planets prior to the creation of the world. Where does what I said give you that impression. I said that the "angels" were the only created beings prior to the creation of the universe. These angels are mentioned in Job and other places in scripture as rejoicing at the creation of the universe. God was NOT dependent upon "pre-existing" matter when He began the six days of creation of the earth. The Bible clearly teaches that there was not any dead planet Earth hanging around in space for 12 billion years waiting for God to put life and light and beauty on it. The angels are "spirit" beings. They don't need planets and a material universe to dwell in. Only material beings like you and me are formed of organic matter and need planets and stars and suns and water and food.
Some have been brain washed by the views of authors who have read other authors who made up mythological worlds and created beings on other planets.
Regarding the accusation that I am "anti-science" and against all the branches of science, this is outrageous and totally untrue!!! The entire study of origins is totally hypothetical and theoretical and totally unproveable and unverifiable and unrepeatable. Science can be used to examine data that is in the present only and THEN make guesses and draw hypothetical conclusions regarding what happened in the past. The past is unobservable and unverifiable empirically. We can only examine clues and we can interview witnesses to events from the past if we can find a witness to the events we wish to understand and explain. Until someone can invent a TIME MACHINE, theories of what happened in the past are only educated guesses and postulations . The problem is that secular scientists refuse to allow that young earth Creationists are making EDUCATED guesses. Secular scientists instinctively decry the Creation scientist as being a buffoon for using an "ancient book of mythology" like the Bible to base a world view upon. This is because secular science refuses to accept the word of God as a credible witness. But God was there and God is telling us what He did in the past!
Bill Diehl
———————————
To XXXX,
Well, it would be an impossibility for a Young Earth Creationist to reach agreement with an Old Earth Secular Humanist or even with an Old Earth Theistic Evolutionist for the simple reason that the young earth creationist accepts as authoritative the Biblical record as it reads in its most literal sense as an accurate historical record. So, by definition, the creationist will always seek to refute evidence that "seems" to indicate that the earth is older than the Biblical record indicates. This drives evolutionists crazy because they do not limit their conclusions to concur with any other authority such as the Bible. The creationist therefore is debating with "one hand tied behind his back" and opens himself to the heckling of the free-wheeling, free-thinking evolutionist who can offer any explanation that seems "reasonable" to an old earth interpretation. The evolutionist will always consider the conclusions of the creationist as ridiculous. This is, as I have said, because the evolutionist considers a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of cosmology to be ridiculous.
For the young earth creationist to accept the postulates of evolution would be to surrender his belief that sin and death entered the world through the disobedience of Adam and that Jesus Christ, the Creator of the world, came into the world to suffer and die for the salvation and justification of all who believe in Him. The creationist believes that not only did Christ, the eternal Creator, die for the sins of the world, but that He is coming again to put an end to sin and destroy death and the Devil and those who reject Christ as Savior and Redeemer. This belief system is RIDICULOUS to the evolutionist who sees death and suffering as natural and that life and death have been the means to produce continually improved and higher, more complex life forms from the Amoeba to Man by natural selection.
In a system which sees natural selection as commodious to the perfecting of life forms, the idea that there is a divine Law which enjoins love for others before ones self is unthinkable and hostile to the Natural Law of survival of the fittest and the strongest life forms who rule over, destroy, enslave, or kill the weak or less adaptable without any "guilt" whatsoever.
In the world of the secular evolutionist there is no moral imperative and hence no guilt. Even if the "theistic" evolutionist is pushed hard enough in his belief system, he will have to admit that the idea of sin, guilt, shame, and a moral imperative is contrary to the observable natural order which, according to his world view, God created that way.
So it all comes down to a matter of "faith" brothers and sisters!! Which belief system shall you and I accept? I choose to accept the cosmology of the Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles like the apostle Paul, Peter, and John who were not even "scientists". These men were either correct in the message that has been recorded in the Bible or they were a bunch of lunatics. The evolutionists of all stripes, when pushed to their ultimate logical conclusions, will have to compromise in one degree or another with the message of the New Testament.
If we reject the testimony of the Old Testament then we will sooner or later reject the New Testament. Nearly all of my college buddies taking theology at Andrews University have bit the dust and rejected Christianity completely as a result of believing the great lie of evolution and/or the old age of the earth. As Paul stated, "if anyone teaches a gospel different from the gospel" that he preached, "let him be accursed". I didn't say this. Paul said it. If anyone disagrees with Paul, take it up with him and not me. Either he was an apostle of the truth or he was a deluded fool.
—————————————
It is possible that when the universe was created by the will and word of God, the speed of light was nearly instantaneous. Light may have been able to travel instantly from one end of the universe to the other end. When God cursed the created order as the result of the fall of Man, the speed of light may have suddenly slowed to near its present speed. Because the star light is continuing to slow due to this loss of energy in the universe, the organized matter of stars and planets and moons in the universe would then take on the "appearance" of moving apart from each other. The slower the speed of light traveled the more that the stars would seem to be "distant" from each other in terms of light-years. The universe would continue to take on the appearance of expansion as the speed of light continued to slow. The slower the speed of light became, the more vast the universe would "appear" to be and the faster the universe would appear to be expanding. This "apparent" expansion of the universe would cause the light to be "red shifted" as the speed of light which reaches our eyes slowed.
Now let us imagine that suddenly the speed of light began to increase!! As the speed of light increased, the "apparent" size of the universe would become "smaller" and the stars would appear to be coming towards us rather than traveling away from us.
The "apparent" size of the universe is only proportional to the speed of light. The entire theory of relativity and the energy contained in the universe is vastly changed if the speed of light changes. Time changes and the amount of energy in matter changes. Time would slow to a near halt as the speed of light reached the near instantaneous mark. The amount of energy within the atoms of matter would become almost infinite.
If, hypothetically, the speed of light is slowing since creation, (I realize that this is may be unprovable. This is only hypothesis) then the universe is only expanding "relatively" to the slowing speed of light. Time is relative to the speed of light so time would be appearing to speed up as the speed of light decreases..
The problem with the stars which are not "red shifted" but rather "blue shifted" could be due to the fact that for some reason the light reaching our eye from these stars is increasing in speed rather than increasing. Thus these stars appear to be coming towards us rather than away from us.
Now imagine hypothetically if the speed of light were increased — the universe would take on the appearance of being much smaller and the stars much closer than presently. Perhaps there is an "ideal" speed of light which when reached gives the universe the appearance that time is very slow and distances between the stars is very close. We could travel to the stars very quickly, almost instantaneously but not quite instantaneously. The relative size of the stars and planets and people and all matter would become "relatively" much "closer" than at present.
The question about time travel is very interesting. Since time is relative to the speed of travel and speed of travel is limited by the speed of light (at present our speed of travel is very limited due to the fact that as we increase our speed, more and more energy is required to go faster and faster) as we approach the present speed of light the energy required to go any faster is almost infinite.
I don't think that God will ever allow Man to discover how to increase the speed of light. This is the ultimate limitation that He has placed upon the fallen universe. The slower speed of light since the fall of Adam has set a limit upon Man so that we are cut off from the rest of the universe and the stars. You could almost say that we have been "cast out" and away from the presence of God and the universe by the slowing of the speed of light.
Best regards to all,
Bill Diehl
————————————
The question to ask ourselves is what determines the speed of light as a "constant" of 186,000 miles/second. Photons seem to have almost no mass yet there is some indication that photons do indeed have some mass. Perhaps it is the amount of mass that they do have (albeit almost infinitely small) which determines the constant speed of the photon. If the mass of the photon could be lessened even more, then perhaps the photon could travel even faster. Conversely if the mass within the photon were increased then the photon would probably slow. This could be the mechanism by which God has determined the speed of light. By regulating the amount of mass within the photon, He has set and determined the very nature of existence for all the universe.
The "curse" that Genesis speaks of could very well be that God increased the mass within the photon and thus decreased the speed of light and thus decreased the amount of energy in matter and the entire universe became much "darker" in appearance. By decreasing the amount of energy within matter, God would have increased the amount of "work" that humans must put into a mechanical system in order for the system to produce the desired result. Biological life would not be as efficient. Physical and chemical reactions would require more energy input in order to take place. Entropy would greatly increase within all these mechanical and biological systems. All because the photon took on a slightly increased amount of mass and slowed down in speed.
Bill
——————————
To LL,
That's your opinion and you are welcome to it. A theology of despair is what generally follows such a rejection of the Genesis account of creation. I have seen this over and over among people I personally know. When push comes to shove, with the passing of time, theistic evolutionists generally end up in the atheistic evolutionist camp. Not always, but generally. Very few theistic evolutionists are believers in the biblical Pauline gospel of Christ and His cross for the redemption of the world. "Redemption" has no biblical meaning to a theistic evolutionist.
Bill
————————————
Presuppositions
by Ken Ham
Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians, all have the same evidence — the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars — the facts are all the same.
The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.
Past and Present
We all exist in the present — and the facts all exist in the present. When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (Where did the animals come from? How did the fossil layers form? etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present.
However, if we weren't there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events. Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a 'time machine'. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.
On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.
Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.
Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.
That's why the argument often turns into something like:
'Can't you see what I'm talking about?'
'No, I can't. Don't you see how wrong you are?'
'No, I'm not wrong. It's obvious that I'm right.'
'No, it's not obvious.' And so on.
These two people are arguing about the same evidence, but they are looking at the evidence through different glasses, different presuppostitions .
It's not until these two people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs. A person will not interpret the evidence differently until they put on a different set of glasses — which means to change one's presuppositions.
I've found that a Christian who understands these things can actually put on the evolutionist's glasses (without accepting the presuppositions as true) and understand how they look at evidence. However, for a number of reasons, including spiritual ones, a non-Christian usually can't put on the Christian's glasses — unless they recognize the presuppositional nature of the battle and are thus beginning to question their own presuppositions.
It is of course sometimes possible that just by presenting 'evidence', you can convince a person that a particular scientific argument for creation makes sense 'on the facts'. But usually, if that person then hears a different interpretation of the same evidence that seems better than yours, that person will swing away from your argument, thinking they have found 'stronger facts'.
However, if you had helped the person to understand this issue of presuppositions, then they will be better able to recognize this for what it is — a different interpretation based on differing presuppositions — i.e. starting beliefs.
As a teacher, I found that whenever I taught the students what I thought were the 'facts' for creation, then their other teacher would just re-interpret the facts. The students would then come back to me saying, 'Well sir, you need to try again.'
However, when I learned to teach my students how we interpret facts, and how interpretations are based on our presuppositions, then when the other teacher tried to reinterpret the facts, the students would challenge the teacher's basic assumptions. Then it wasn't the students who came back to me, but the other teacher! This teacher was upset with me because the students wouldn't accept her interpretation of the evidence and challenged the very basis of her thinking.
What was happening was that I had learned to teach the students how to think rather than just what to think. What a difference that made to my class! I have been overjoyed to find, sometimes decades later, some of those students telling me how they became active, solid Christians as a result.
Debate Terms
If one agrees to a discussion without using the Bible as some people insist, then they have set the terms of the debate. In essence these terms are:
'Facts' are neutral. However, there are no such things as 'bare facts'; all facts are interpreted. Once the Bible is eliminated in the argument, then the Christians' presuppositions are gone, leaving them unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts. Their opponents then have the upper hand as they still have their presuppositions.
Truth can/should be determined independent of God. However, the Bible states: The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (Psalm 111:10); The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge (Proverbs 1:7). But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2:14).
A Christian cannot divorce the spiritual nature of the battle from the battle itself. A non-Christian is not neutral. The Bible makes this very clear: The one who is not with Me is against Me, and the one who does not gather with Me scatters (Matthew 12:30); And this is the condemnation, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the Light, because their deeds were evil (John 3:19).
Agreeing to such terms of debate also implicitly accepts their proposition that the Bible's account of the universe's history is irrelevant to understanding that history!
Ultimately, God's Word convicts. 1 Peter 3:15 and other passages make it clear we are to use every argument we can to convince people of the truth, and 2 Cor. 10:4-5 says we are to refute error (like Paul did in his ministry to the Gentiles). Nonetheless, we must never forget Hebrews 4:12: For the word of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing apart of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Also, Isaiah 55:11: So shall My word be, which goes out of My mouth; it shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall certainly do what I sent it to do.
Even though our human arguments may be powerful, ultimately it is God's Word that convicts and opens people to the truth. In all of our arguments, we must not divorce what we are saying from the Word that convicts. When someone tells me they want 'proof' or 'evidence', not the Bible, my response is as follows:
'You might not believe the Bible but I do. And I believe it gives me the right basis to understand this universe and correctly interpret the facts around me. I'm going to give you some examples of how building my thinking on the Bible explains the world and is not contradicted by science. For instance, the Bible states that God made distinct kinds of animals and plants. Let me show you what happens when I build my thinking on this presupposition. I will illustrate how processes such as natural selection, genetic drift, etc. can be explained and interpreted. You will see how the science of genetics makes sense based upon the Bible.'
One can of course do this with numerous scientific examples, showing how the issue of sin and judgment, for example, is relevant to geology and fossil evidence. And how the Fall of man, with the subsequent Curse on creation, makes sense of the evidence of harmful mutations, violence and death.
Once I've explained some of this in detail, I then continue: 'Now let me ask you to defend your position concerning these matters. Please show me how your way of thinking, based on your beliefs, makes sense of the same evidence. And I want you to point out where my science and logic are wrong.'
In arguing this way, a Christian is: Using biblical presuppositions to build a way of thinking to interpret the evidence. Showing that the Bible and science go hand in hand.
Challenging the presuppositions of the other person (many are unaware they have these). Forcing the debater to logically defend his position consistent with science and his own presuppositions (many will find that they cannot do this).
Honoring the Word of God that Convicts the Soul.
Remember, it's no good convincing people to believe in creation, without also leading them to believe and trust in the Creator/Redeemer, Jesus Christ. God honors those who honor His Word. We need to use God-honoring ways of reaching people with the truth of what life is all about.
Naturalism, Logic and Reality
Those arguing against creation may not even be conscious of their most basic presupposition, one which excludes God a priori, namely naturalism/materialism (everything came from matter, there is no supernatural, no prior creative intelligence). The following two real-life examples highlight some problems with that assumption:
1) A young man approached me at a seminar and stated, 'Well, I still believe in the "big bang", and that we arrived here by chance random processes. I don't believe in God.' I answered him, 'Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don't know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. Young man, you don't know if you're making correct statements or even whether you're asking me the right questions.'
The young man looked at me and blurted out, 'What was that book you recommended?' He finally realized that his belief undercut its own foundations — such 'reasoning' destroys the very basis for reason.
2) On another occasion, a man came to me after a seminar and said, 'Actually, I'm an atheist. Because I don't believe in God, I don't believe in absolutes, so I recognize that I can't even be sure of reality.' I responded, 'Then how do you know you're really here making this statement?' 'Good point,' he replied. 'What point?' I asked. The man looked at me, smiled, and said, 'Maybe I should go home.' I stated, 'Maybe it won't be there.' 'Good point,' the man said. 'What point?' I replied.
This young man certainly got the message. If there is no God, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality? How can one even rationally believe that there is such a thing as truth, let alone decide what it is?
Regards,
Ken Ham
———————————
To XXXXX,
Regarding reality. The mind does not create its own reality. Reality is what God has determined what is real, namely the heavens, the earth, the sea and all that is in them. The material world is real, not because our minds perceive it, but rather because God has created the material world. The material world exists even if there were no human mind to perceive it. Existentialism is part of the great humanist lie that thinks that reality is different for different individuals as they perceive reality.
There is only one reality. There are not multiple realities. God's creation is real. God's creation came into existence at a point in time 6,000 years ago in a six day creation process and then He rested on the Sabbath. This is reality whether all the world refuses to believe this reality or not. Let every man be a liar yet God is true and He speaks the truth and does not lie. Humanism denies the true reality of God and His word as the final and true reality. Evolutionism is a lie and all the voices in the world proclaiming it will not make it any more true. Reality exists because the Creator God exists. Reality does not exist in the mind.
Bill
———————————————
To JJ.,
Thanks for the reply. I realize that finding flaws in evolutionary theory does not make a direct argument for a young earth creation by the God of the Bible. The point is though that eventhough many young earth arguments sound preposterous to evolutionists, the arguments of the evolutionists are just as preposterous and unprovable. Did you ever see a land dwelling mammal walk into the sea and turn into a whale? Did you ever see a reptile sprout feathers and jump out of a tree and fly? Where is the fossil evidence or the biological evidence that scales can evolve into feathers? Where is "Protoavis" ? Where are all the "intermediate" life forms that are supposedly evolving into "higher" life forms? There should be MORE intermediate forms than there are established life forms if evolution were true.
Dogs are dogs and cats are cats and people are people and whales are whales. Kinds breed with kinds and genetically cannot successfully interbreed. Genetic mutations are always inferior life forms which almost always fail to survive. New information forming within the cell genes simply is not happening with a beneficial result. Darwin's theory of natural selection does not provide new information on a genetic level. Neo-Darwinian theory proposes that genetic mutations produce the evolutionary changes of the biological "tree" but the mutations have not been shown to have taken place nor are they able to take place in a beneficial offspring. Without new information within the genes of the species, one is only coming up with variations of the same species as in the case of the much vaunted "Peppered Moth" which has been the evolutionists favorite "proof" of evolution. Now they are pointing to new strains of pathogens resistant to antibiotics as proof of evolution. The jury is still out on this example. But regardless of the outcome there simply are not ENOUGH intermediate forms between established species to give a credible case for evolution from one species transforming into another.
You take exception and object to my hypothetical discussion regarding the speed of light, yet the evolutionists make shockingly unprovable statements and hypothesises all the time and people just say, "my isn't that interesting what scientists have proven." Go to any geo-science museum and you will see preposterous exhibits showing proposed billions of years and thousands of intermediate life forms to produce the horse, human beings, whales, birds, and dogs. All based upon fantastic unproven speculation.
Even modern radiometric "dating" is based upon speculation that the rate of radiocarbon production has always been uniform and in equilibrium so that dates can be extrapolated from the amount of radiocarbon remaining in a sample.
ALL historic "scenario theories" are speculations. I don't deny that the theory of young earth creationism is purely theoretical. I cannot PROVE to you that the earth is young! But because the evolutionists outright reject the idea of a personal creator God, they CANNOT bring themselves to accept the presuppositions of the creationists. On the other hand, because the creationists outright reject the idea of a universe without meaning and a personal creator God, they CANNOT bring themselves to accept the presuppositions of the evolutionists.
The fact is though that if God "used evolution" to bring about the present life situation of death, suffering, injustice, and "survival of the fittest" through "natural selection", then the Gospel of the New Testament is a mere pipe dream and a myth. One is left with a "Theology of Despair" in a universe without hope, and Man is all alone in a cold and dying universe. Let us eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die. Life has no meaning and my life and my sufferings in this world have no meaning.
But breaking through all this despair comes the word of God through His prophets that gives us the answers to the eternal questions, "Why all the suffering?" and "Where did we come from?" Jesus says, "Let not your heart be troubled....I will come again to receive you unto Myself." We are not alone because the God who created a sinless, deathless world has conquered the hopelessness of the world and will one day restore all things in a new Heaven and a new Earth where all that hurts and destroys with not enter in.
Getting back to your question of why the evidence for a young earth is so "sloppy" and the evidence for evolution seems to be so convincing, this is not really the case. There is much very convincing evidence for a young earth IF one is open to realizing that BOTH sides in the controversy are INTERPRETING the evidence based upon their PRESUPPOSITIONS and neither side will convince the other side until these presuppositions are confronted from a PHILOSOPHICAL perspective first. This is where FAITH must enter the picture on EITHER side of the discussion. The problem generally is that the evolutionist refuses to accept the fact that his interpretations of the evidence are based upon the FAITH PRESUPPOSITION that "The Present is the Key to the Past". This is what is called "Uniformitarianism". This really is the "RELIGION" of the evolutionist. The "RELIGION" of the creationist on the other hand is that of the "Fall of Man and the Entrance of Sin and Death". The presuppostitions of each side in the dispute are PHILOSOPHICALLY unacceptable to each side and each side of the dispute considers the presuppositions of the other side to be OUTRAGEOUS. This is why each side sometimes resorts to NAME CALLING and INSULTS as to the intelligence of the other.
The testimony of Dr. Gary Parker is very interesting. He was a dedicated secular humanist who became a Christian. Prior to his becoming a Christian he had been the author of 3 textbooks on evolution and was a respected authority on evolutionary theory. After he became a Christian he came to realize that all of the "evidence" that he thought so clearly pointed to an ancient earth and evolution now just as clearly pointed to a young universe and earth and instantaneous creationism. He is now one of the foremost crusader for young earth creationism and offers some truly amazing arguments showing that evolution is not true and that young earth creationism is much easier to demonstrate as model for origins. He freely admits that he can neither "prove" nor "disprove" either view, BUT he demonstrates that evidence fits the creation model EASIER that it does the evolution model.
The bottom line is that the truth of young earth creationism is always a matter of faith that is based on a reasonable interpretation of the Book of Nature viewed through the lens of the Book of the Bible. It is left up to the individual which "lens" one chooses to look through. The lens of humanism or the lens of Christianity. There really is no middle ground. Eventhough many attempt to harmonize the two positions, the result is a compromise that is unsatisfactory to either. Most theistic evolutionists end up in the agnostic or atheistic camp and unbelief in the Christian faith of the Bible. Most theistic evolutionists are in fact theistic humanists. The decision as to what we will believe is left up to each of us as to what "dogma" we are willing to be "dogmatized" with. My hope and prayer is that each and every person on the earth will come to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ as both Creator and Redeemer and that they will all with one heart and voice bow down and worship and praise His holy name. Now and forever more. Bill
——————————————
JJ. You are proposing a false premise in the form of a question: "how many have the young-earth creationists driven away by insisting that unless you disregard the evidence of your own eyes you can't be a real Christian?"
Regarding the first part of your question, if I drive away people from Christ because of my unchristlike personality then that is a sin, however if people reject Christ because they reject the clear teachings of the word of God, that is unfortunately a regrettable result that a Christian preacher cannot avoid. Either the listener with allow the Holy Spirit to lead him into the truth of the gospel or he will resist the Holy Spirit and reject the proclamation of the word of God and the gospel.
It is the second part of your question that contains a false premise. Namely, you are proposing that we are dealing with events in the past that can be "observed with ones own eyes". There is no way to view the past "with your own eyes". We can only view the present with our own eyes. All conclusions which purport to explain the past that are derived from events and data in the present and are only extrapolations. Therefore historical conclusions based upon extrapolations from present day data are only hypothetical or theoretical. Extrapolations are always prone to be subject to the weakness of being based upon insufficient data, inaccurate data, inaccurate reasoning, and inaccurate conclusions. This is not to say that all extrapolations are completely inaccurate but that they are never in the realm of absolute certainty.
I admit that I am at a disadvantage to the secular evolutionists. For the Christian, theological considerations always influence his interpretations of the data. The evolutionist is not thus boxed in. He can propose all sorts of events in the past which he imagines took place during the course of BILLIONS OF YEARS. Given enough time, says the evolutionist, by the trial and error process of natural selection and genetic mutation all of the life that we see today could have evolved. This seems like a very "logical" and "reasonable" basis upon which to construct a theory of origins. This is why the evolutionist is ALWAYS BIASED towards giving great age to geological strata formations, fossils, coal, petrified wood, stalactites and stalagmites, continental drift, ice ages, coral formation, human history, mountain range formation, and a thousand other pages in the Book of Nature. This is the unavoidable bias of the evolutionist. Without this bias, his theory cannot be a reasonable theory. He needs time (and lots of it) to interpret the data to fit his theory of progressive cosmological and biological evolution of the natural order. He recognizes that the Book of Nature can only be read in the present, but the Theory of Evolution is the overlay that he that places over the data in order to attempt to give a possible explanation of the raw empirical data and make "sense" of the data.
Along comes the "lunatic" young earth creationist who emphatically states that the universe is no more than 6,000 years old and that God (whose existence is not empirically provable) created the earth as a perfect, well ordered, friendly, deathless, beautiful, unspoiled, and happy place for the first Man and Woman, named Adam and Eve, to live in and worship and serve God throughout eternity. Not only does the young earth creationist say this, but he also states that pain, suffering, death, evil, selfishness, and injustice are not part of the original creation and that this came into the natural world as the result of Man's rebellion against his Creator and His moral law which defines sin and righteousness. The entire world view of the creationist is based upon the theological premise that the historical record of the Bible is accurate history. The Bible, according to the creationist, also contains a truthful record of God's plan of salvation for the human family which will eventually result in the complete restoration of the universe to its original sinless, deathless perfection. This has been accomplished through the sinless life, sacrificial death, and resurrection from the dead of the incarnate Creator Himself, Jesus Christ, upon a Roman cross 2,000 years ago.
This is the world view of the young universe creationist Christian. Thus for the Bible believing Christian, all of his understanding and interpretation of geology, archeology, biology, cosmology, astronomy, ethics, and history must be in agreement with his THEOLOGY. The Bible believing Christian thus has a constraint placed upon him which forces him to interpret all the natural world order in the light of his Christian world view.
So the major bias and presupposition of the evolutionist is "The Present is the Key to the Past" (uniformitarianism). He requires and is constrained by the need for TIME AND LOTS OF IT in order to allow his world view of pains-takingly-slow evolutionary processes to take place.
The major bias and presupposition of the creationist on the other hand is the BIBLICAL RECORD which he believes to be the truthful basis upon which to build his world view.
Given these biases, it is obvious that the evolutionist comes to the arena with seemingly great advantage. Whenever the evolutionist encounters a problem with his theory, he can merely propose another hypothesis or interpretation of the data in order to maintain his overall theory.
The Creationist is in a much more restrictive position. His interpretation of the data must always seek an explanation that is in harmony with the Biblical record. Any data which seems to perhaps contradict the Bible record must be explained in such a way as to support a six day creation, the fall of man, and a world wide flood which completely changed the face of the earth.
It would seem on the surface that the Creationist is at a disadvantage to the evolutionist. The Evolutionist has much more "elbow room" in which to theorize than the Creationist has. But due to the fact that the Biblical record of a six day creation and a world wide flood are actually relatively reconcilable and able to harmonize with what we find in the world today, many well educated, intelligent, and rational young universe Biblical scientists have been able to approach the study of archeology and geology and genetics and the other life sciences and earth sciences and make a credible case for the Biblical account.
Neither side claims to have all the answers that fit perfectly with their respective theories. Neither side will ever be able to win the other side over to its views, but there are many examples of well educated individuals who are crossing the line in both directions. There will always be additions and subtractions from the ranks of either side.
———————————
To BBBB,
If the best response that you can come up with to my hypothetical suggestions regarding the speed of light is that you are glad that the speed of light is constant so that automatic doors at the supermarket will not bang you in the face, then it probably is a good thing that you don't have the time to make a more thoroughly written response. It is obvious that you have never even considered reading any of the journals put out by reputable well educated young earth creationist scientist's organizations. You may find that they are not quite the fools that you like to caricaturize them as. The evidence for a young earth and universe is actually quite overwhelming. But a man convinced against his will, unconvinced remains he still. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
It is not "sad" that evangelical creationist Christians refuse to accept theistic evolution. Go to any church denomination that has embraced theistic evolution as its world view and then you will see how "sad" these denominations are. I was a member of such a denomination before embracing evangelical creationism and I know personally how they preach only a "social gospel" without the earnest faith in Christ as their personal Savior and Lord. There "hope" is for death as they only await their "going" to God at the "release" from the body at death rather than Him coming to them at the second advent with a glorious new body. The Bible to them is a mere collection of ancient myths about an "encounter with God". The religion of the theistic evolutionist is existentialism. Faith is reduced to an experience within the believer rather than an objective confidence that Christ lived a sinless life and died upon the cross as an atoning sacrifice for their sins and that He is soon coming again to create a new heaven and a new earth where sin and suffering and death will be no more. The doctrine of the immortality of the soul goes hand in hand with theistic evolution because to all evolutionists, secular or theistic, death is not an intruder into the natural world but rather a welcomed God ordained guest. After all, according to the theistic evolutionist, God uses natural selection as part of the creation process. Re-incarnation is also a natural belief flowing out of the cesspool of theistic evolutionism., since re-incarnation offers more that a mere "immortal soul" existence by giving the believer a new body in which to once again enjoy the material world.
So the bottom line is that the Bible teaches a literal six day creation of the universe, the entrance of sin and death, redemption and eternal life for all repentant sinners through faith in the atonement of Christ upon the cross, and the assurance of the resurrection of the dead at the coming of Christ. To remove creationism and the Fall from the Christian equation is to remove the entire Christian religion to the realm of mythology. But as the apostle Peter assures us:
"For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For He received from God the Father honor and glory, when there came such a voice to Him from the excellent glory, 'This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.' And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with Him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the Day dawns, and the day star arise in your hearts. Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction."
——————————————
So of the two primary mechanisms for evolution, natural selection and genetic mutation, neither of them add new genetic material to the genome of living life forms of animals. Natural selection only removes so-called weaker and less adapted forms so there is no new genetic material in this mechanism. Genetic mutations always result in loss of genetic information or else use existing genetic information. So where does the new information come from to allow a land dwelling mammal over the course of millions of years to eventually end up in the sea as a whale perfectly adapted to life in the deepest oceans and enable males and females to mate successfully with other mammals that were supposedly originally land dwelling mammals?
I just read the latest issue of AToday online. The presentations are completely lacking in objective Biblical and Biological research from the young universe biblical perspective. Very sad to see these writers crumbling from within to the forces proclaiming the lies of theistic evolution.
There is nothing new under the sun. Most Christian denominations have rejected the clear proclamation of justification by grace alone through faith alone in the sinless life and atoning death of our Lord Jesus Christ alone. Now these groups are reaping the whirlwind in the invasion of the theistic evolutionists who reject "Sola Scriptura". Now it is "Sola Humanism" and "Sola Low View of Scriptura". Make no mistake about it, if theistic evolution is true then the Sabbath is a memorial to a six day creation that never took place. Those who embrace theistic evolutionism and an earth that is millions of years old will not be willing to take a stand for the Sabbath when the going gets tough and the decree goes forth to worship the Beast and his Image. The word of God is clear, "in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea and ALL that is in them..." He made "each one after its kind".
I pray that those who are in the valley of decision regarding this tremendously important issue will come up to the side of the Lord clothed in the full armor of God. If the creation account and the Fall of man are mythological then the cross of Christ and His atoning sacrifice are a mere moralism without saving power to bring redemption from sin through the blood of the everlasting covenant sprinkled before the eternal Law of God. The winds of the shaking time are blowing fiercely, but those who cling to the word of the Lord will never fall though a thousand shall fall at thy right and ten thousand on thy left.
I strongly suggest that you read the allegorical story of the king who bought a new set of clothes which only the "wise" could see. Problem was that his new set of clothes did not exist and the king was walking around naked. No one wanted to tell the king that he did not really have any clothes on because they did not want to be considered to be a "fool" eventhough they really did not see any clothes on the king. Only an innocent child did not care whether he was considered wise or a fool dared to shout out "The king doesn't have any clothes on!!". Well the fact is that theory of evolution doesn't have any clothes on.
You want to liken the case for evolution to the16th century debate as to whether the earth revolves around the sun, but the analogy doesn't fit. We can see the earth is in fact revolving around the sun. This is empirical science, good science.
Biological evolution with proposed beneficial mutations which add new information to the cell genes IS NOT taking place and therefore IS NOT HAPPENING. It's not there. It does not exist! You are engaging in wishful thinking and seeing imagined events that only exist in your mind. "Where's the beef???" The emperor has no clothes on even though no one has the courage to tell him!! Well I'm telling you. Cows are cows and pigs are pigs. Whales are whales and dogs are dogs. Lies are lies and cells are NOT receiving new genetic material and evolving into higher forms of life. You are being hoodwinked into believing a FALSE RELIGION that will destroy your faith in the blood of Christ which is TRUE RELIGION. You are following a cleverly devised FABLE.
Bill
——————————————
To BL,
I was NOT being dishonest or disingenuous. If there is an extra "and" in my quotation of the text of Genesis it was accidental I assure you. I am not sure which version I pasted in.
As to my hypothesis regarding the speed of light, this was all just table talk and supposition that the speed of light may be slowing down in some way today or may have slowed once at the Fall. Purely conjecture.
The matters under discussion in the immediate context of this discussion of origins is the issue of "observable" mutations adding new genetic material to a living organism which enable it to change morphicly into a different life form. You use the word "reality" to describe evolution of less complex life forms into more complex life forms. This is a "reality" that exists only in your mind. Life forms are losing informational genetic material, they are not gaining. Make no mistake, the ideological battle of evolution versus creation will be fought at the genetic level and it will be won by the creationists at the genetic level, not at the homological, geological or archeological level. Eventhough in point of fact the creationists are winning the battle on this level as well.
Regarding your theological argument wishing to make the creation account in Genesis into figurative poetry rather than literal historical events. I am not willing to observe the seventh day Sabbath of the fourth commandment if the Biblical six day creation account is a allegorical fairy tale. I don't worship a make-believe Creator. To make the Biblical creation account into a fairy tale is to make the Law of God and the fourth commandment a fairy tale as well. Make no mistake about it. The challenge of Neo-Darwinian evolutionism is a challenge to the very Law of God and the believability of His word. Satan is still whispering, "Yes, God has said six day creation, but I say to you evolution. You shall be as God."
Elijah is calling to you today, "Choose ye this day whom you will serve." All the calling down of fire out of heaven and cutting of the flesh will not turn an ameba into a man even if we wait for another imagined 5 billion years. Call louder. Maybe your god is asleep!!!! The beneficial mutations with the needed information just aren't happening and there isn't enough time in all of eternity to make it happen. God has blinded the eyes of the wise but unto the little children He has revealed the truth and they are calling out, the emperor has no clothes!! King Darwin is blushing and has nowhere to turn. But still his faithful subjects cling to his feet. Why? Because to turn away from Darwin is to face the eternal Creator God who speaks the truth. All the world will be called to face the Judge of all the world who died on the cross for the sins of all the world. Behold the Man! Behold your Creator and Savior.
The battle of theistic evolution is the battle for the hearts and souls of all men and women. Theistic Evolution and the immortality of the soul are a myth. In the day that you eat of it you shall surely die. Bill
—————————————————
To BL,
Regarding your question about the imagined conflict of the six day creation account with the texts which follow describing in detail the fall of Man and the entrance of sin. If you really expect an answer you will have to refer to a specific conflict that exists in your mind. I have not seemed to be able to find it.
Regarding what you call the period punctuation and "new paragraph heading" between verse one and two of Genesis one, I have a hard time believing that you would bring this up, but for those who do not know it, there are no such editorial features in the Hebrew. I already answered the question as to why the creation account is not like the parable of Lazarus. None of the other Bible prophets and apostles interpreted the creation account thusly, including our Lord when He referred to the creation of man and the Sabbath. Again I say, if the creation account is a parable, the fourth commandment is a parable. Are you willing to lose your job or your life over Sabbath keeping if the six day creation account is a parable?
The fact that you bring up old and worn evolutionary arguments that have been refuted repeatedly in the creation science journals and publications reveals that you are not really interested in reading the evidence to refute your erroneous positions but rather merely wish to blow smoke to confuse those who are unlearned and unread and unstable in the faith of the gospel. The word of God clearly refuted you on your false views of the atonement and it is now demolishing your views of theistic evolution. Do leopards ever change their spots?
Bill Diehl
————————————
To G,
You can role the dice a million times, but you will never get more that 12 or less than 2 on the dice. No matter how many times you role the dice you are still rolling dice and not rolling potatoes.
I appreciate your delineation of the number of ways that genes can be altered to produce a mutation. Still no matter how you "dice" it or "slice" it (no pun intended), the forms of "evolution" that you mention in your post are not resulting in dogs that are not dogs, amoeba that are not amoeba, or people that are not people. These forms of "evolution" that you mention do NOT alter the chromosome count and therefore change one species into another species. These forms of "evolution" only affect minor characteristics within the species not the species itself. Darwin's finches are still finches (even if some are so strange that they cannot interbred anymore).
G, you say, "A mutation will always add information to the genome. The reason is that information is defined as uncertainty: uncertainty in the outcome of an experiment. If you roll a dice, there's more information in the outcome than if you flip a coin, because there's more uncertainty (more options) with the dice. A mutation in the genome is an addition of information because we don't know ahead of time how it will come out."
The fatal flaw in you reasoning is that you have mis-defined "information" as "uncertainty". Have you ever heard the saying, "Put junk in and you get junk out"? When one combines two sets of dog genes containing "information" in those genes, there is really no "uncertainty" in the true sense of the word. Those genes containing doggie information will always yield doggies. Of this we are "certain". The only thing that we are "uncertain" about are the exact characteristics that will result from the random lining up of the genes. Increasing randomness is not increasing or "adding information". The outcome will always be the result of the information that is in the genes in the first place. The "information" is in the genes and you are not adding something that is not in the original genes. Even if you increase the number of possible gene combinations, you do not increase the information beyond what information that is found in the genes. New information does not magically appear that is not in the genes in the first place.
Even the "uncertainty" that you mention is not really that "uncertain". Generally speaking if I breed my world champion (1979) palomino Appaloosa stallion (Native Sun) to my neighbor's palomino Quarter Horse mare, I have a 50% to 25% chance of getting a spotted palomino foal. I cannot "exactly" (uncertainty) predict all of the physical characteristics of the foal, but I know that it will be within a certain range of color, height, and disposition. It will certainly be a horse though!! The "information" in the genes is "uncertain" only because I cannot look at the genes at the time of conception and see exactly which genes will line up. We horse breeders would love to be able to line up the genes just the way we want them to, but we must rely on random chance to determine the genetic makeup of the foal. In summary, "uncertainty" is not "information". No matter how much "uncertainty" there is in the outcome, there will never be more genetic information "out" (expressed) than was put "in" originally from the sperm and the egg.
It is very simple really. It is all about the birds and the bees. Evolutionists simply never sat down and had a talk with their dads. That's why they get so mixed up in their reasoning. The Lord catches the wise man in his wisdom and confounds the foolishness of the ungodly. Bill
—————————————
To B,
With all due respect, these kind of scientific looking math and word games may look impressive as if the small mutations of a few genes make a difference to the organism that results from the union of the sperm and the egg, but in actual fact these changes only affect expressed characteristics of the animal, but the animal itself still does not change from one species into another. Characteristic changes never affect the animal to such an extent that the animal becomes a different species of animal.
The theory behind the myth of Neo-Darwinian evolution is that if enough micro-evolution takes place, eventually over a period of millions of years macro-evolution will result and a whole new species will result. The lowly amoeba will after millions of years mutate enough times to become a sponge and then after a few more million years of micro-evolution of the sponge it will become an animal more advanced in the imagined evolutionary "tree of life". This is pure imagination and is religious myth. It has never been observed in any of the life sciences. It is only wishful thinking of men who believe in their theory of origins so strongly that they are "seeing" something that is not there. The emperor still has no clothes.
The overwhelming evidence from genetics is that specific species only changed in minor outward ways with the passing of time and NEVER into new species. This strongly points to species that were always that species from the beginning of the world, i.e., they were created that way by the Creator. Fish have always been fish. Dolphins have always been dolphins. Humans have always been humans. Apes have always been apes. Outward appearances may vary somewhat but not to the point of changing into another species. Bill
—————————————
To G,
Looks like you and I aren't speaking the same language. Tell you what, you keep on believing what you believe. You obviously are convinced that the emperor is wearing clothes. If you think that the chromosome damaged genes involved in Down's Syndrome is an example of evolution then your kind of logic will fall of its own weight. You remind me of a patient I once had who always sat in the corner muttering to voices he heard. There at first some other patients would come to listen to his muttering and make reply. Eventually though, fewer and fewer were willing to sit and listen to a discussion about events which were not happening. Macro-evolution is not happening and it never did happen.
If you think that I am taking the part of Satan because I warn those who believe in your cleverly devised fable of evolution, then this just shows how mixed up you truly are. These issues are not merely scientific in nature. Those who continue to choose to believe in evolution will eventually grieve the Holy Spirit away completely.
"And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."
"But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges. But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house. He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad. Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit. O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."
Must be that some of the forum members are rather upset by my posts from the size of my email. DB. has just written to me advising me that I need psychological help immediately. What's the matter DB? Can't you respond on the forum so everyone can see you post? Do you have to send unsigned emails which seek to intimidate those on this forum with whom you disagree? You must not realize that any email that you send out can be easily traced to find out the author. Is this the way you intimidate others on the forum? If you have to send this kind of junk, be man enough to sign your name. If you have a gripe, post it on the forum for all to see.
Bill Diehl
|
