Blog Diyiin Bi

Hebrews 11:1 “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

Like most Christians, I would like to think of myself as a man of faith. We (my wife and I) have learned to trust God to keep His promises, including promises to provide our needs. (Read Matthew 6:25-34 for Jesus’ discourse on how God has promised to do just that.) All of us who are born again have faith that God loves us, that He has forgiven our sins, and that Jesus rose from the dead. Creationists believe that the account of creation, the fall, and the flood, as recorded in Genesis chapters one through nine, are literal history. We also believe that the 66 books that comprise the Protestant Bible are the inspired Word of God.

Evolutionists say that the entire Bible is nothing more than a collection of fables and stories.

This article does not address those who call themselves Christians but deny the literal interpretation of the Genesis record.

One of the mis-statements made by evolutionists about creationists is that we creationists must rely on Faith, while they rely on Science. Is that really true?

At best, it is a half-truth. We creationists do rely on faith. But when you examine the evolutionist’s belief system and find out what can be verified by true science, you will see that they rely on faith far more than we do.

Let’s compare “our faith” to “their faith.” Read the first nine chapters of Genesis to see where we get our faith for each of these points of comparison. Read any public school science textbook to see what our kids and grandkids are being taught about the evolutionists’ faith for these same points.

Our faith:

By faith, we believe that God created life.

Their faith:

By faith, they believe that chance random processes produced life.

Discussion:

The second law of thermodynamics has never been observed to have been violated. For the simplest form of life to spontaneously come into existence would require billions of such violations in the exact right sequence, and the evolution of more complex life forms as observed to exist today would require trillions (see the previous article.) Life has never been created from non-life in a laboratory, and even if it can someday be done, that would be evidence that it takes intelligent intervention to cause life to come into existence. It takes more faith to believe “their faith” than to believe “ours.”

Our faith:

By faith, we believe that each kind (”kind” roughly corresponds to “species”) reproduces only the same kind.

Their faith:

By faith, they believe that each of the species that we see, whether alive now or only found in the fossil record, evolved from more primitive species.

Discussion:

While scientists have observed species to go out of existence (the famous dodo bird, for example), no one has ever observed any new species to come into existence. Not in nature. Not in a laboratory. Not ever! It takes more faith to believe “their faith” than to believe “ours.”

Our faith:

By faith, we believe that God created male and female.

Their faith:

By faith, they believe that bisexual reproduction somehow evolved from asexual reproduction.

Discussion:

What an amazing series of coincidences! A male and female of the same species just happened to evolve from some asexual species at the same time and in the same place, and in such a way that the intermediate forms were still somehow able to reproduce while being half-asexual and half-female or half-male! It takes more faith to believe “their faith” than to believe “ours.”

Our faith:

By faith, we believe that God created animals that fly.

Their faith:

By faith, they believe that flying animals evolved from non-flying animals. And not just once, but four times! (Birds, flying insects, flying mammals, flying reptiles.)

Discussion:

The fossil record has thousands upon thousands of MISSING examples of this supposed sequence of evolution. 99% of the illustrations in our kids’ textbooks that depict what they believe about the evolution of flying animals are nothing but what some artist IMAGINES the supposed intermediate forms MIGHT have looked like. For example, no fossil has ever been found that has a limb which is halfway between being an arm and being a wing. It would not continue to evolve over thousands of years and become a full-fledged wing as would be required for a flying animal to evolve from a non-flying animal. Rather, because it would actually be detrimental to the survival of the animal to which it was attached, it would disappear in a few generations. This is called “survival of the fittest.” It takes more faith to believe “their faith” than to believe “ours.”

Our faith:

By faith, we believe that the fossil record is evidence of a catastrophic world-wide event in Earth’s history, commonly referred to as “Noah’s Flood.”

Their faith:

By faith, they believe that the fossil record is evidence of multiple millions of years of evolution.

Discussion:

All of the “evidence” for evolution exists, in actuality, only in the minds of those who do not want to believe in God. The discussion of their “evidence” for the supposed evolution of flying animals also applies to every supposed evolutionary sequence, not just flying animals. There is not one missing link, there are billions! It takes more faith to believe “their faith” than to believe “ours.”

Our faith:

By faith, we believe that God created the entire universe, including the laws of physics that govern all physical events, in six literal days of about 24 hours each, and that this took place about 6,000 years ago.

Their faith:

By faith, thay believe that the universe started with a big bang about 15 billion years ago.

Discussion:

They can’t explain where whatever it was that blew up came from. They can’t explain what caused it to go “bang.” They can’t explain who or what enacted the laws of physics that govern all physical events. It takes more faith to believe “their faith” than to believe “ours.”

Our faith:

By faith, we believe that man is sinful and is in need of a Saviour. This Saviour, Jesus Christ, was born in Bethlehem about 2,000 years ago, and He is the only begotten Son of God. He lived a life completely free of sin, and was put to death, becoming the perfect Sacrifice for our sins. He was buried, and rose on the third day. He has ascended to Heaven and now sits at the right hand of God the Father. He will return again, first to take to Heaven those who have put their faith in Him (the rapture), and then to judge the world (the second coming at the end of the seven years’ tribulation).

Their faith:

By faith, they believe that man will somehow right all of the wrongs in the world and, in effect, we are our own “saviour.”

Discussion:

Any person who is not living under a rock can see that the world is getting worse, not better. The armies of this world have the capability of destroying all life on the planet in just a few moments! The only reason that it hasn’t happened yet is because no political leader who has had the will to “push the button” has had access to that button. And the only reason for that is because God’s Holy Spirit is restraining evil from having complete control. Every year, more people die of starvation, not fewer. Every year, more people die of more new strains of disease organisms, not fewer. (BTW, that is micro-evolution – variation within the same kind. Those new organisms are still of the same KINDS, not NEW kinds as would be required for macro-evolution to be true.) It takes more faith to believe “their faith” than to believe “ours.”

There are many more examples of “our faith” vs. “their faith” that could be disussed. We didn’t even touch on DNA, evidence for a young Earth, or many other subjects. Some of these topics will be addressed in future articles.

If you want to meet a man of faith, just find an evolutionist. The only problem with his faith is that it totally misplaced, and will take him and all who follow him to eternal punishment in hell.

If you want to know how to follow Jesus Christ, the one TRUE Man of faith, and be saved, please read What must I do to be saved?

in His service,
Pastor Marv

Related Reading:

Related Posts:

• Is there really a God?
• Facing the Storms of Life
• What is truth?

Welcome to the new category, “Apologetics.” Apologetics is not the art of saying “I’m sorry.” Rather, it is the study of what we believe and why we believe it.

In this first article for the new “Apologetics” category, let’s jump right into the heart of all the debate between Creationists and Evolutionists. Evolutionists are really trying to do away with the need for a Supreme Being, and Creationists are, of course, saying the exact opposite. Obviously, this series of articles will be written from the Creationist point of view.

Can we prove that God exists? Can you prove that God does NOT exist? That depends on how one defines “prove.” No, not like our former president saying, “That depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is…” “Is” has a very clear definition, unless you wish to butcher the English language in order to justify some behavior which the voting populace might not approve of. And there are, in general, two kinds of “proof”: scientific and legal/historical, both with clear definitions and both recognized by our judicial system. (Actually, the existence of God can also be proven from logic. But this article is about evidence, not logic. A future article in this series may explore the logical argument.)

Scientific evidence is that evidence that can be found by repeatable experiments, usually in a laboratory but sometimes in the field. For instance, one can devise an experiment to show that a molecule of water is made up of one atom of oxygen and two of hydrogen, write a description of the procedure, and then another scientist can then duplicate the experiment and get the same results. (Presumably coming to the same conclusion.)

Legal/historical evidence consists of things like historical documents and eyewitness accounts. For example, we rely on historical documents to “prove” the fact that George Washington was once President of the United States. There is no living human who can testify that he actually observed George Washington being President. On the other hand, we can rely on both eyewitness testimony of presently-living humans and on historical documents to “prove” that Bill Clinton was once President. Even though there are no scientific experiments that can be done to prove or disprove either fact, neither is in dispute because of the preponderance of the evidence.

Sometimes, as is the case with DNA evidence, the distinction between scientific evidence and legal/historical evidence can be somewhat unclear. With DNA evidence, it can be scientifically proven that the accused person’s DNA is at the scene of the crime. But proving that the person’s DNA was there does not prove that the accused was the perpetrator. The DNA evidence lends a high degree of credibility to eyewitness’ statements that the person whose DNA was found at the scene is, in fact, the perpetrator, but does not in and of itself prove that he was.

Fossils and archeological finds provide legal/historical evidence. The writings of Josephus, Plato, etc., provide legal/historical evidence. Chemical analysis and radiocarbon dating of artifacts provides scientific evidence.

To the best of my knowledge, no scientist has devised a scientific experiment that proves or disproves the existence of God. But the preponderance of legal/historical evidence, and scientific proof that lends credibility to that evidence (and to the Creationist interpretation of that evidence), does prove that there is a God. (Our judicial system proves that someone is or is not guilty of a crime by examining the same types of legal/historical evidence and scientific proof that lends credibility to that evidence.)

There are two possible ways that we “got here”: 1) The creationist position: We were created by an eternally self-existent God; 2) The evolutionist position: We spontaneously evolved from matter that is eternally self-existent, or from matter that itself spontaneously came into existence.

The so-called “theistic evolution” position, which says that God used evolution to accomplish the process of creation, is not in agreement with either the observable facts as interpreted by Evolutionists, or the observable facts as interpreted by Creationists. This position will not be discussed in this series of articles, but may be in a future article or series.

Both Creationists and Evolutionists look at the same set of observable facts and come to radically different opinions as to what these facts mean. The facts are, briefly, these: 1) We are here. {duh!} 2) There are numerous fossils that suggest species lived in the past that are now extinct.

Apparently ignored by Evolutionists are these two facts: 1) The Second Law of Thermodynamics has NEVER been OBSERVED to have been violated, either in nature or in a laboratory; and 2) Evolution requires trillions (that’s with a “TR”) of such violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics in order to cause the proverbial speck of slime to become a reasoning, thinking being that wonders how we got here.

And what, some of you are asking, is this Second Law of Thermodynamics? In layman’s terms, it can be explained this way: Things go from a more ordered (or usable) state to a less ordered (less usable) state, unless some outside agent acts on the “things.” One way to think of this is that the gas that goes into your tank is less usable after it comes out of your tailpipe. Yet another: if you take a deck of playing cards and throw them into the air, they will come down in a very disorganized pile, not neatly stacked in order, ace through king, in each of the four suites.

Evolution says that things spontaneously went from disorganized (chemicals floating in the primordial sea) to highly organized (human beings, dogs, cats, trees, corn-on-the-cob, …). Creation says that (human beings, dogs, cats, trees, corn-on-the-cob, …) were all created by an Intelligent Designer who is eternally self-existent.

Evolution says that all those fossils we mentioned earlier are evidence of evolution. Creation says that those same fossils are evidence of a world-wide catastrophe – the Flood as described in Genesis chapters six through nine, commonly referred to as Noah’s Flood.

Future articles in this series will explore evidence for Creation (and, therefore, for the existence of God) in more detail.

Some thoughts to close out this first of several articles…

…if there is no God, then who or what enacted the so-called “Laws of Nature?” (Newton’s laws of motion, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, etc.) These laws are highly organized – were they not, scientists would have no way of discovering and describing them!

…If the “Big Bang” is true, what was it that exploded? And where did “it” come from? AND what caused “it” to explode? and FURTHER, what caused THAT cause, ad infinitum? Some original “uncaused cause?” Hmm-m-m…an “uncaused cause” is one way that we Creationists describe God!

Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”

in His service,
Pastor Marv

Related Reading:

Related Posts:

• Faith, Fact, and Fiction
• What is truth?

Webster, in the 1828 edition of his dictionary, defines truth as “Conformity to fact or reality; exact accordance with that which is, or has been, or shall be.”

In 1916, 88 years after this edition of the dictionary was published, Einstein published his General Theory of Relativity. It turned the scientific world upside down, changing forever the way we see our universe. So did Einstein’s Theory change the definition of truth? Does it mean that all truth is relative?

How you answer those questions depends on your world view. If the observable universe is all that exists, then you can make a case for all truth being relative.

Or can you…?

Let’s examine that statement, “All truth is relative.” This philosophy is currently being applied to everything from science to moral values. The generation of the 60’s said it this way: “If it feels good, do it!” In other words, it’s only wrong if you believe it to be wrong.

Or, yet another way to say it is this: “What is truth for you is not necessarily truth for me.” If you follow this line of reasoning to its logical end, you will come to the absurd conclusion that it is an absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth.

How can you be sure that there is no absolute truth unless you know EVERYTHING? If there is something that you don’t know, just one tiny tidbit that is outside of your body of knowledge, maybe that tidbit is an Absolute Truth…even if, among all of the bits and pieces of knowledge that you do possess, you can find no absolute truth. So, unless you really do know everything, there is no way that you can honestly claim that there is no absolute truth. And if you do know everything, then your all-encompassing body of knowledge would, in and of itself, be Absolute Truth against which all other truth would be measured!

So, is there anyone who does possess absolute, total, all-encompassing knowledge?

YES! Jesus Christ said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6)

How can He make such a seemingly outrageous claim? Because He is the Creator, the Eternal and Omniscient God, who became flesh. “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us”. (John 1:14a)

Only One who is all-knowing (omniscient=all-knowing) could make the claim that He is Truth. Not just that He knows all truth, but that He IS truth. And He proved His claim by rising from the dead.

So, to answer the questions posed in the opening sentences of this article: no, Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity did NOT change the definition of truth. No, all truth is NOT relative. What the scientific theory did was to change the way we perceive some truths.

But truth is still truth. The Bible tells me so.

in His service,
Pastor Marv

Webster’s 1828 Dictionary is part of e-Sword

Related Reading:

Related Posts:

• Write For Us
• The Fellowship Committed to Doing Whatever it Takes
• Pastor Marv Recommends has been moved
• Faith, Fact, and Fiction
• Is there really a God?