Why Shouldn’t Christians Accept Millions of Years

On January 29, 2008June 20, 2008 By KateIn Various5 Comments

Why Shouldn’t Christians Accept Millions of Years?

by Terry Mortenson

August 16, 2007

Featured In

There is an intensifying controversy in the church all over the world regarding the age of the earth. For the first 18 centuries of church history, the almost universal belief of Christians was that God created the world in six literal days roughly 4,000 years before Christ and destroyed the world with a global Flood at the time of Noah.

But about 200 years ago some scientists developed new theories of earth history, which proposed that the earth and universe are millions of years old. Over the past 200 years Christian leaders have made various attempts to fit the millions of years into the Bible. These include the day-age view, gap theory, local flood view, framework hypothesis, theistic evolution, and progressive creation.

A growing number of Christians (now called young-earth creationists), including many scientists, hold to the traditional view, believing it to be the only view that is truly faithful to Scripture and that fits the scientific evidence far better than the reigning old-earth evolutionary theory.

Many Christians say that the age of the earth is an unimportant and divisive side issue that hinders the proclamation of the gospel. But is that really the case? Answers in Genesis and many other creationist organizations think not.

In this chapter, I want to introduce you to some of the reasons we think that Christians cannot accept the millions of years without doing great damage to the church and her witness in the world. Other chapters in this book will go into much more detail on these issues.

The Bible clearly teaches that God created in six literal, 24-hour days a few thousand years ago. The Hebrew word for day in Genesis 1 is yom. In the vast majority of its uses in the Old Testament it means a literal day; and where it doesn’t, the context makes this clear.
The context of Genesis 1 clearly shows that the days of creation were literal days. First, yom is defined the first time it is used in the Bible (Genesis 1:4–5) in its two literal senses: the light portion of the light/dark cycle and the whole light/dark cycle. Second, yom is used with “evening” and “morning.” Everywhere these two words are used in the Old Testament, either together or separately and with or without yom in the context, they always mean a literal evening or morning of a literal day. Third, yom is modified with a number: one day, second day, third day, etc., which everywhere else in the Old Testament indicates literal days. Fourth, yom is defined literally in Genesis 1:14 in relation to the heavenly bodies.
The genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 make it clear that the creation days happened only about 6,000 years ago. It is transparent from the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 (which give very detailed chronological information, unlike the clearly abbreviated genealogy in Matthew 1 and other chronological information in the Bible that the Creation Week took place only about 6,000 years ago.
Exodus 20:9–11 blocks all attempts to fit millions of years into Genesis 1. “Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy” (Exodus 20:9-11).This passage gives the reason for God’s command to Israel to work six days and then take a sabbath rest. Yom is used in both parts of the commandment. If God meant that the Jews were to work six days because He created over six long periods of time, He could have said that using one of three indefinite Hebrew time words. He chose the only word that means a literal day, and the Jews understood it literally (until the idea of millions of years developed in the early nineteenth century). For this reason, the day-age view or framework hypothesis must be rejected. The gap theory or any other attempt to put millions of years before the six days are also false because God says that in six days He made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them. So He made everything in those six literal days and nothing before the first day.
Noah’s Flood washes away millions of years. The evidence in Genesis 6–9 for a global catastrophic flood is overwhelming. For example, the Flood was intended to destroy not only all sinful people but also all land animals and birds and the surface of the earth, which only a global flood could accomplish. The Ark’s purpose was to save two of every kind of land animal and bird (and seven of some) to repopulate the earth after the Flood. The Ark was totally unnecessary if the Flood was only local. People, animals, and birds could have migrated out of the flood zone before it occurred, or the zone could have been populated from creatures outside the area after the Flood. The catastrophic nature of the Flood is seen in the nonstop rain for at least 40 days, which would have produced massive erosion, mud slides, hurricanes, etc. The Hebrew words translated “the fountains of the great deep burst open” (Genesis 7:11) clearly point to tectonic rupturing of the earth’s surface in many places for 150 days, resulting in volcanoes, earthquakes, and tsunamis. Noah’s Flood would produce exactly the kind of complex geological record we see worldwide today: thousands of feet of sediments clearly deposited by water and later hardened into rock and containing billions of fossils. If the year-long Flood is responsible for most of the rock layers and fossils, then those rocks and fossils cannot represent the history of the earth over millions of years, as evolutionists claim.
Jesus was a young-earth creationist. Jesus consistently treated the miracle accounts of the Old Testament as straightforward, truthful, historical accounts (e.g., creation of Adam, Noah and the Flood, Lot and his wife in Sodom, Moses and the manna, and Jonah in the fish). He continually affirmed the authority of Scripture over men’s ideas and traditions (Matthew 15:1–9). In Mark 10:6 we have the clearest (but not the only) statement showing that Jesus was a young-earth creationist. He teaches that Adam and Eve were made at the “beginning of creation,” not billions of years after the beginning, as would be the case if the universe were really billions of years old. So, if Jesus was a young-earth creationist, then how can His faithful followers have any other view?
Belief in millions of years undermines the Bible’s teaching on death and on the character of God. Genesis 1 says six times that God called the creation “good,” and when He finished creation on Day 6, He called everything “very good.” Man and animals and birds were originally vegetarian (Gen. 1:29–30, plants are not “living creatures,” as people and animals are, according to Scripture). But Adam and Eve sinned, resulting in the judgment of God on the whole creation. Instantly Adam and Eve died spiritually, and after God’s curse they began to die physically. The serpent and Eve were changed physically and the ground itself was cursed (Genesis 3:14–19). The whole creation now groans in bondage to corruption, waiting for the final redemption of Christians (Romans 8:19–25) when we will see the restoration of all things (Acts 3:21, Colossians 1:20) to a state similar to the pre-Fall world, when there will be no more carnivorous behavior (Isaiah11:6–9) and no disease, suffering, or death (Revelation 21:3–5) because there will be no more Curse (Revelation 22:3). To accept millions of years of animal death before the creation and Fall of man contradicts and destroys the Bible’s teaching on death and the full redemptive work of Christ. It also makes God into a bumbling, cruel creator who uses (or can’t prevent) disease, natural disasters, and extinctions to mar His creative work, without any moral cause, but still calls it all “very good.”
The idea of millions of years did not come from the scientific facts. This idea of long ages was developed by deistic and atheistic geologists in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. These men used antibiblical philosophical and religious assumptions to interpret the geological observations in a way that plainly contradicted the biblical account of creation, the Flood, and the age of the earth. Most church leaders and scholars quickly compromised using the gap theory, day-age view, local flood view, etc. to try to fit “deep time” into the Bible. But they did not understand the geological arguments, and they did not defend their views by careful Bible study. The “deep time” idea flows out of naturalistic assumptions, not scientific observations.
Radiometric dating methods do not prove millions of years. Radiometric dating was not developed until the early twentieth century, by which time virtually the whole world had already accepted the millions of years. For many years creation scientists have cited numerous examples in the published scientific literature of these dating methods clearly giving erroneous dates (e.g., a date of millions of years for lava flows that occurred in the past few hundred years or even decades). In recent years creationists in the RATE project have done experimental, theoretical, and field research to uncover more such evidence (e.g., diamonds and coal, which the evolutionists say are millions of years old, were dated by carbon-14 to be only thousands of years old) and to show that decay rates were orders of magnitude faster in the past, which shrinks the millions of years to thousands of years, confirming the Bible.¹

Conclusion

These are just some of the reasons why we believe that the Bible is giving us the true history of the world. God’s Word must be the final authority on all matters about which it speaks—not just the moral and spiritual matters, but also its teachings that bear on history, archaeology, and science.

What is at stake here is the authority of Scripture, the character of God, the doctrine of death, and the very foundation of the gospel. If the early chapters of Genesis are not true literal history, then faith in the rest of the Bible is undermined, including its teaching about salvation and morality. I urge you to carefully read the other chapters in this book. The health of the church, the effectiveness of her mission to a lost world, and the glory of God are at stake.

Footnotes

For the results of the RATE project, see Larry Vardiman, Andrew Snelling, and Eugene Chaffin, eds., Radioisitopes and the Age of the Earth, Vol. 2, Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, 2005; and Don DeYoung, Thousands … Not Billions, Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, 2005. Back

Copyright Notice

Copyright © 2008 Answers in Genesis. All rights reserved. Consent is given to unlimited copying, downloading, quoting from, and distribution of this article for non-commercial, non-sale purposes only, provided the following conditions are met: the author of the article is clearly identified; Answers in Genesis is acknowledged as the copyright owner; Answers Research Journal and its website, www.answersresearchjournal.org, are acknowledged as the publication source; and the integrity of the work is not compromised in any way. For more information write to: Answers in Genesis, PO Box 510, Hebron, KY 41048, Attn: Editor, Answers Research Journal.

Creation: ‘where’s the proof?’ by Ken Ham

On January 29, 2008June 20, 2008 By KateIn VariousLeave a comment

When the person you talk to on creation insists that you ‘leave the Bible out of it’, they are really saying the deck should be stacked one way.

Creation Archive > Volume 22 Issue 1 > Creation: ‘where’s the proof?’


	First published: Creation 22(1):39–42 December 1999 Browse this issue

by Ken Ham

Over the years, many people have challenged me with a question like:

‘I’ve been trying to witness to my friends. They say they don’t believe the Bible and aren’t interested in the stuff in it. They want real proof that there’s a God who created, and then they’ll listen to my claims about Christianity. What proof can I give them without mentioning the Bible so they’ll start to listen to me?’

Briefly, my response is as follows.

Evidence

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.

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 ‘brute 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 — see Naturalism, logic and reality.
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.

Practical application

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.¹
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).
Honouring 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 honours those who honour His Word. We need to use God-honouring 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).² The following two real-life examples highlight some problems with that assumption:

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.

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 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?

Copyright Notice

Is There Really a God?

On January 29, 2008June 20, 2008 By KateIn Various1 Comment

by Ken Ham & Jason Lisle

August 9, 2007

God—an Eternal, Uncreated Being?

Source

In our everyday experience, just about everything seems to have a beginning. In fact, the laws of science show that even things which look the same through our lifetime, such as the sun and other stars, are, in reality, running down. The sun is using up its fuel at millions of tons each second—since the sun cannot last forever, it had to have a beginning. The same can be shown to be true for the entire universe.

So when Christians claim that the God of the Bible created all the basic entities of life and the universe, some will ask what seems to be a logical question: “Who created God?”

The very first verse in the Bible declares: “In the beginning God … .” There is no attempt in these words to prove the existence of God or imply in any way that God had a beginning. In fact, the Bible makes it clear in many places that God is outside time. He is eternal, with no beginning or end. He also knows all things, being infinitely intelligent.

Is it logical, though, to accept the existence of such an eternal being? Can modern science, which has produced our technology of computers, space shuttles, and medical advances, even allow for such a notion?¹

What Would We Look For?

What evidence would we expect to find if there really is an infinite God who created all things as the Bible claims? How would we even recognize the hand of such an omnipotent (all-powerful) Creator?

The Bible claims that God knows all things—He is omniscient! Therefore, He is infinitely intelligent. To recognize His handiwork, one would have to know how to recognize the evidence of the works of His intelligence.

How Do We Recognize the Evidence of Intelligence?

Why do scientists become so excited when they discover stone tools together with bones in a cave? The stone tools show signs of intelligence. The scientists recognize that these tools could not have designed themselves but that they are a product of intelligent input. Thus, the researchers rightly conclude that an intelligent creature was responsible for making these tools.

Mt. Rushmore—formed by natural processes?

In a similar way, one would never look at the Great Wall of China, the U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C., or the Sydney Opera House in Australia and conclude that such structures were formed after explosions in a brick factory.

Neither would anyone believe that the presidents’ heads on Mt. Rushmore were the products of millions of years of erosion. We can recognize design, the evidence of the outworkings of intelligence. We see man-made objects all around us—cars, airplanes, computers, stereos, houses, appliances, and so on. And yet, at no time would anyone ever suggest that such objects were just the products of time and chance. Design is everywhere. It would never enter our minds that metal, left to itself, would eventually form into engines, transmissions, wheels, and all the other intricate parts needed to produce an automobile.

This “design argument” is often associated with the name of William Paley, an Anglican clergyman who wrote on this topic in the late eighteenth century. He is particularly remembered for his example of the watch and the watchmaker. In discussing a comparison between a stone and a watch, he concluded that “the watch must have had a maker; that there must have existed, at some time and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use.”²

Paley thus believed that, just as the watch implied a watchmaker, so too does design in living things imply a Designer. Although he believed in a God who created all things, his God was a Master Designer who is now remote from His Creation, not the personal God of the Bible.³

Today, however, a large proportion of the population, including many leading scientists, believe that all plants and creatures, including the intelligent engineers who make watches, cars, etc., were the product of an evolutionary process— not a Creator God.⁴ But this is not a defensible position, as we will see.

Living Things Show Evidence of Design!

The late Isaac Asimov, an ardent anti-creationist, declared, “In man is a three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe.”⁵ It is much more complex than the most complicated computer ever built. Wouldn’t it be logical to assume that if man’s highly intelligent brain designed the computer, then the human brain was also the product of design?

Scientists who reject the concept of a Creator God agree that all living things exhibit evidence of design. In essence, they accept the design argument of Paley, but not Paley’s Designer. For example, Dr. Michael Denton, a non-Christian medical doctor and scientist with a doctorate in molecular biology, concludes:

It is the sheer universality of perfection, the fact that everywhere we look, to whatever depth we look, we find an elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality, which so mitigates against the idea of chance. Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artifacts appear clumsy. We feel humbled, as neolithic man would in the presence of twentiethcentury technology. It would be an illusion to think that what we are aware of at present is any more than a fraction of the full extent of biological design. In practically every field of fundamental biological research ever-increasing levels of design and complexity are being revealed at an ever-accelerating rate.⁶

Dr. Richard Dawkins, holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair of Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, has become one of the world’s leading evolutionist spokespersons. His fame has come as the result of the publication of books, including The Blind Watchmaker, which defend modern evolutionary theory and claim to refute once and for all the notion of a Creator God. He said, “We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully ‘designed’ to have come into existence by chance.”⁷

There is no doubt that even the most ardent atheist concedes that design is evident in the animals and plants that inhabit our planet. If Dawkins rejects “chance” in design, what does he put in place of “chance” if he does not accept a Creator God?

Who—or What—Is the Designer Then?

Design obviously implies a designer. To a Christian, the design we see all around us is totally consistent with the Bible’s explanation: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1), and “For by him [Jesus Christ] all things were created that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through him and for him” (Colossians 1:16).

However, evolutionists like Richard Dawkins, who admit the design in living things, reject the idea of any kind of a Designer/God. In reference to Paley, Dawkins states:

Paley’s argument is made with passionate sincerity and is informed by the best biological scholarship of his day, but it is wrong, gloriously and utterly wrong. The analogy between telescope and eye, between watch and living organism, is false.⁸

Why? It is because Dawkins attributes the design to what he calls “blind forces of physics” and the processes of natural selection. Dawkins writes:

All appearance to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with future purpose in his mind’s eye. Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind’s eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker [emphasis added].⁹

Dawkins does, however, concede that “the more statistically improbable a thing is, the less can we believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an Intelligent Designer.”¹⁰

Nonetheless, he rejects the idea of an “Intelligent Designer” and instead offers this “answer”:

The answer, Darwin’s answer, is by gradual, step-by-step transformations from simple beginnings, from primordial entities sufficiently simple to have come into existence by chance. Each successive change in the gradual evolutionary process was simple enough, relative to its predecessor, to have arisen by chance. But the whole sequence of cumulative steps constitutes anything but a chance process, when you consider the complexity of the final end product relative to the original starting point. The cumulative process is directed by nonrandom survival. The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate the power of this cumulative selection as a fundamentally nonrandom process.¹¹

Basically, then, Dawkins is doing nothing more than insisting that natural selection¹² and mutations¹³ together provide the mechanism for the evolutionary process. He believes these processes are nonrandom and directed. In reality, this is just a sophisticated way of saying that evolution is itself the designer.

Does Natural Selection Produce Design?

Life is built on information. A great amount of this information is contained in that molecule of heredity, DNA, which makes up the genes of an organism. Therefore, to argue that natural selection and mutations are the basic mechanisms of the evolutionary process, one must show that these processes produce the information responsible for the design that is evident in living things.

Anyone who understands basic biology recognizes, of course, as Darwin did, that natural selection is a logical process that one can observe. However, natural selection only operates on the information that is already contained in the genes—it does not produce new information.¹⁴ Actually, this is consistent with the Bible’s account of origins, in that God created distinct kinds of animals and plants, each to reproduce after its own kind.

It is true that one can observe great variation in a kind and see the results of natural selection. For instance, wolves, coyotes, and dingoes have developed over time as a result of natural selection operating on the information found in the genes of the wolf/dog kind. But the point is that no new information was produced—these varieties of dogs have resulted from a rearrangement, sorting out, and separation of the information in the original dog kind. One kind has never been observed to change into a totally different kind with information that previously did not exist.¹⁵ Without intelligent input to increase information, natural selection will not work as a mechanism for evolution.

Denton confirms this when he states:

It cannot be stressed enough that evolution by natural selection is analogous to problem solving without any intelligent guidance, without any intelligent input whatsoever. No activity which involves an intelligent input can possibly be analogous to evolution by natural selection.¹⁶

Without a way to increase information, natural selection will not work as a mechanism for evolution. Evolutionists would agree with this, but they believe that mutations somehow provide the new information for natural selection to act upon.

Can Mutations Produce New Information?

Actually, scientists now know that the answer is “no!” Dr. Lee Spetner, a highly qualified scientist who taught information and communication theory at Johns Hopkins University, makes this abundantly clear in his scholarly and thoroughly researched book, Not by Chance:

In this chapter I’ll bring several examples of evolution, particularly mutations, and show that information is not increased. … But in all the reading I’ve done in the life-sciences literature, I’ve never found a mutation that added information.¹⁷

All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it.¹⁸

The NDT [neo-Darwinian theory] is supposed to explain how information of life has been built up by evolution. The essential biological difference between a human and a bacterium is in the information they contain. All other biological differences follow from that. The human genome has much more information than does the bacterial genome. Information cannot be built up by mutations that lose it. A business can’t make money by losing it a little at a time [emphasis added].¹⁹

Evolutionary scientists have no way around this conclusion that many scientists, including Dr. Spetner, have now come to. Mutations do not work as a mechanism for the evolutionary process. Spetner sums it all up as follows:

The neo-Darwinians would like us to believe that large evolutionary changes can result from a series of small events if there are enough of them. But if these events all lose information they can’t be the steps in the kind of evolution the NDT is supposed to explain, no matter how many mutations there are. Whoever thinks macroevolution can be made by mutations that lose information is like the merchant who lost a little money on every sale but thought he could make it up in volume … . Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome. That surely shows that there are not the millions upon millions of potential mutations the theory demands. There may well not be any. The failure to observe even one mutation that adds information is more than just a failure to find support for the theory. It is evidence against the theory. We have here a serious challenge to neo-Darwinian theory [emphasis added].²⁰

This is also confirmed by Dr. Werner Gitt, a director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology. In answering the question, “Can new information originate through mutations?” he said:

This idea is central in representations of evolution, but mutations can only cause changes in existing information. There can be no increase in information, and in general the results are injurious. New blueprints for new functions or new organs cannot arise; mutations cannot be the source of new (creative) information [emphasis added].²¹

So if natural selection and mutations are eliminated as mechanisms to produce the information and design of living systems, then another source must be found.

But there are even more basic problems for those who reject the Creator God as the source of information.

A Greater Problem Still!

Some scientists and educators have tried to get around the above problems by speculating that as long as all the chemicals that make up the molecule of heredity (and the information it contains) came together at some time in the past, then life could have begun.

Life is built upon information. In fact, in just one of the trillions of cells that make up the human body, the amount of information in its genes would fill at least 1,000 books of 500 pages of typewritten information. Scientists now think this is hugely underestimated.

Where did all this information come from? Some try to explain it this way: imagine a professor taking all the letters of the alphabet, A–Z, and placing them in a hat. He then passes the hat around to students of his class and asks each to randomly select a letter.

It is easy for us to see the possibility (no matter how remote it seems) of three students in a row selecting B then A and finally T. Put these three letters together and they spell a word—BAT. Thus, the professor concludes, given enough time, no matter how improbable it seems, there is always the possibility one could form a series of words that make a sentence, and eventually compile an encyclopedia. The students are then led to believe that no intelligence is necessary in the evolution of life from chemicals. As long as the molecules came together in the right order for such compounds as DNA, then life could have begun.

On the surface, this sounds like a logical argument. However, there is a basic, fatal flaw in this analogy. The sequence of letters, B-A-T, is a word to whom? Someone who speaks English, Dutch, French, German, or Chinese? It is a word only to someone who knows the language. In other words, the order of letters is meaningless unless there is a language system and a translation system already in place to make the order meaningful.

In the DNA of a cell, the order of its molecules is also meaningless, except that in the biochemistry of a cell, there is a language system (other molecules) that makes the order meaningful. DNA without the language system is meaningless, and the language system without the DNA wouldn’t work either. The other complication is that the language system that reads the order of the molecules in the DNA is itself specified by the DNA. This is another one of those “machines” that must already be in existence and fully formed, or life won’t work!

Can Information Arise from Noninformation?

We have already shown that information cannot come from mutations, a so-called mechanism of evolution, but is there any other possible way information could arise from matter?

Dr. Werner Gitt makes it clear that one of the things we know for sure from science is that information cannot arise from disorder by chance. It always takes (greater) information to produce information, and ultimately information is the result of intelligence:

A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor) … . It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required.²⁴

There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.²⁵

“There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.²⁶

What Then Is the Source of the Information?

We can therefore conclude that the huge amount of information in living things must originally have come from an intelligence, which had to have been far superior to ours. But then, some will say that such a source would have to be caused by something with even greater information/intelligence.

However, if they reason this way, one could ask where even this greater information/intelligence came from. And then where did that one come from? One could extrapolate to infinity, unless there was a source of infinite intelligence, beyond our finite understanding. But isn’t this what the Bible indicates when we read, “In the beginning God …”? The God of the Bible is not bound by limitations of time, space, or anything else.

Even Richard Dawkins recognizes this:

Once we are allowed simply to postulate organized complexity, if only the organized complexity of the DNA/protein replicating engine, it is relatively easy to invoke it as a generator of yet more organized complexity. That, indeed, is what most of this book is about. But of course any God capable of intelligently designing something as complex as the DNA/protein replicating machine must have been at least as complex and organized as that machine itself. Far more so if we suppose him additionally capable of such advanced functions as listening to prayers and forgiving sins. To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have to say something like, “God was always there,” and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well just say “DNA was always there,” or “Life was always there,” and be done with it.²⁷

So what is the logically defensible position? Is it that matter has eternally existed (or came into existence by itself for no reason) and then that, by itself, matter was arranged into information systems against everything observed in real science? Or did an eternal Being, the God of the Bible, the source of infinite intelligence,²⁸ create information systems for life to exist, which agrees with real science?

If real science supports the Bible’s claims about an eternal Creator God, then why isn’t this readily accepted? Michael Behe answers with this:

The fourth and most powerful reason for science’s reluctance to embrace a theory of intelligent design is also based on philosophical considerations. Many people, including many important and well-respected scientists, just don’t want there to be anything beyond nature. They don’t want a supernatural being to affect nature, no matter how brief or constructive the interaction may have been. In other words … they bring an a priori philosophical commitment to their science that restricts what kinds of explanations they will accept about the physical world. Sometimes this leads to rather odd behavior.²⁹

The crux of the matter is this: if one accepts there is a God who created us, then that God also owns us. If this God is the God of the Bible, He owns us and thus has a right to set the rules by which we must live. More important, He also tells us in the Bible that we are in rebellion against Him, our Creator. Because of this rebellion (called sin), our physical bodies are sentenced to death; but we will live on forever, either with God or without Him in a place of judgment. But the good news is that our Creator provided a means of deliverance for our sin of rebellion, so that those who come to Him in faith and repentance for their sin can receive the forgiveness of a holy God and spend eternity with Him.

God Is the Foundation for Science and Reason

As stated before, the Bible takes God’s existence as a given. It never attempts to prove the existence of God, and this for a very good reason. When we logically prove a particular thing, we show that it must be true because it follows logically from something authoritative. But there is nothing more authoritative than God and His Word. God knows absolutely everything. So it makes sense to base our worldview on what God has written in His Word.

Some people claim that it is unscientific to start from God’s Word. But in reality, nothing could be further from the truth. A belief in God is actually foundational to logical thought and scientific inquiry. Think about it: why is logical reasoning possible? There are laws of logic that we use when we reason. For example, there is the law of noncontradiction, which states that you can’t have “A” and “not-A” at the same time and in the same relationship. We all “know” that this is true. But why is it true, and how do we know it?

The Bible makes sense of this: God is self-consistent. He is noncontradictory, and so this law follows from God’s nature. And God has made us in His image; so we instinctively know this law. It has been hard-wired into us. Logical reasoning is possible because God is logical and has made us in His image. (Of course, because of the Curse we sometimes make mistakes in logic.)

But if the universe were merely a chance accident, then why should logical reasoning be possible? If my brain is merely the product of mutations (guided only by natural selection), then why should I think that it can determine what is true? The secular, evolutionary worldview cannot account for the existence of logical reasoning.

Likewise, only a biblical worldview can really account for the existence of science—the study of the natural world. Science depends on the fact that the universe obeys orderly laws which do not arbitrarily change. But why should that be so? If the universe were merely an accident, why should it obey logical, orderly laws—or any laws at all for that matter? And why should these laws not be constantly changing, since so many other things change?

The Bible explains this. There are orderly laws because a logical Law-Giver upholds the universe in a logical and consistent way. God does not change; so He sustains the universe in a consistent way. Only a biblical worldview can account for the existence of science and technology.

Now, does this mean that a non-Christian is incapable of reasoning logically or doing science? Not at all. But he is being inconsistent. The non-Christian must “borrow” the above biblical principles in order to do science, or to think rationally. But this is inconsistent. The unbeliever must use biblical ideas in order to use science and reason, while he simultaneously denies that the Bible is true.

So Who Created God?

By very definition, an eternal Being has always existed—nobody created Him. God is the Self-Existent One—the great “I Am” of the Bible.³⁰ He is outside time; in fact, He created time. Think about it this way: everything that has a beginning requires a cause. The universe has a beginning and therefore requires a cause. But God has no beginning since He is beyond time. So God does not need a cause. There is nothing illogical about an eternal Being who has always existed even though it might be difficult to fully understand.

You might argue, “But that means I have to accept this by faith because I can’t totally understand it.”

We read in the book of Hebrews: “But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him” (11:6).

What kind of faith is Christianity then? It is not blind faith as some may think. In fact, it is the evolutionists who deny the Creator who have the blind “faith.”³¹ They have to believe in something (i.e., that information can arise from disorder by chance) which goes against real science.

But Christ, through the Holy Spirit, actually opens the eyes of Christians so that they can see that their faith is real.³² The Christian faith is a logically defensible faith. This is why the Bible makes it very clear that anyone who does not believe in God is without excuse: “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).

How Do We Know the Creator Is the God of the Bible?

You can believe fallible man’s ideas that there is no God, or trust the perfect Word of God, the 66 books of the Bible, that says there is. The issue is simple; it is a matter of faith—God exists or God doesn’t exist. The exciting thing about being a Christian is knowing that the Bible is not just another religious book, but it is the Word of the Creator God, as it claims.³³

Only the Bible explains why there is beauty and ugliness; why there is life and death; why there is health and disease; why there is love and hate. Only the Bible gives the true and reliable account of the origin of all basic entities of life and the entire universe.

And over and over again, the Bible’s historical account has been confirmed by archaeology, biology, geology, and astronomy. No contradiction or erroneous information has ever been found in its pages, even though it was written over hundreds of years by many different authors, each inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Scientists from many different fields have produced hundreds of books and tapes defending the Bible’s accuracy and its claim that it is a revelation to us from our Creator. It not only tells us who we are and where we came from, but it also shares the good news of how we can spend eternity with our Lord and Savior. Take that first step and place your faith in God and His Word.

Footnotes

Psalm 90:2, 106:48, 147:5. Notice that only things which have a beginning have to have a cause. See J. Sarfati, If God created the universe, then who created God? TJ 12(1):20–22, 1998. Back
W. Paley, Natural Theology: or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature, reprinted in 1972 by St. Thomas Press, Houston, Texas, 3. Back
I. Taylor, In the Minds of Men, TFE Publishing, Toronto, Canada, 1991, 121. Back
This is the process by which life is supposed to have arisen spontaneously from nonlife. Over long periods of time, different kinds of animals and plants have then supposedly developed as a result of small changes, resulting in an increase in genetic information. For instance, evolutionists propose that fish developed into amphibians, amphibians into reptiles, reptiles evolved into birds and mammals. Man eventually evolved from an ancestor shared with apes. Back
I. Asimov, In the game of energy and thermodynamics you can’t even break even, Smithsonian, June 1970, 10. Back
M. Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Adler & Adler Publishers, Bethesda, Maryland, 1986, 32. Back
R. Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Co., New York, 1987, 43. Back
Ibid., 5. Back
Ibid., 5. Back
R. Dawkins, The necessity of Darwinism, New Scientist 94:130, 1982. Back
Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 43. Back
Dr. Gary Parker, a creationist, argues that natural selection does occur, but operates as a “preservative” and has nothing to do with one organism changing into another. “Natural selection is just one of the processes that operates in our present corrupted world to insure that the created kinds can indeed spread throughout the Earth in all its ecologic and geographic variety (often, nowadays, in spite of human pollution).” G. Parker, Creation: Facts of Life, Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, 1994, 75.
“[Richard] Lewontin is an evolutionist and outspoken anticreationist, but he honestly recognizes the same limitations of natural selection that creation scientists do: ‘ … natural selection operates essentially to enable the organisms to maintain their state of adaptation rather than to improve it.’ Natural selection does not lead to continual improvement (evolution); it only helps to maintain features that organisms already have (creation). Lewontin also notes that extinct species seem to have been just as fit to survive as modern ones, so he adds: ‘… natural selection over the long run does not seem to improve a species’ chances of survival, but simply enables it to “track,” or keep up with, the constantly changing environment.’” “It seems to me that natural selection works only because each kind was created with sufficient variety to multiply and fill the earth in all its ecologic and geographic variety.” G. Parker, Creation: Facts of Life, 84–86. See also C. Wieland, Stones and Bones, Creation Science Foundation, Acacia Ridge D.C., Queensland, Australia, 1995, 18–20. Back
“After all, mutations are only changes in genes that already exist,” G. Parker, Creation: Facts of Life, 103. “In an article paradoxically titled ‘The Mechanisms of Evolution,’ Francisco Ayala defines a mutation as ‘an error’ in DNA.” G. Parker, Creation: Facts of Life, 99. See also C. Wieland, Stones and Bones, 18–25. Back
L.P. Lester and R.G.Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, Probe Books, Dallas, 1989, 175–176. E. Noble et al., Parasitology: The Biology of Animal Parasites, Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia, 1989. Chapter 6: “Evolution of Parasitism?” 516, states, “Natural selection can act only on those biologic properties that already exist; it cannot create properties in order to meet adaptational needs.” Back
For instance, despite many unproved claims to the contrary by evolutionists, nobody has observed or documented a reptile changing into a bird. The classic example paraded by some evolutionists as an “in-between” creature, Archaeopteryx, has now been rejected by many evolutionists. Back
M. Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 317. Back
L. Spetner, Not By Chance, The Judaica Press, Brooklyn, New York, 1997, 131–132. Back
Ibid., 138. Back
Ibid., 143. Back
Ibid., 159–160. Back
W. Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, 2006, 127. Back
M.J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, The Free Press, New York, 1996, 252–253. Back
Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 139–140. Back
Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, 64–67. Back
Ibid., 79. Back
Ibid., 107. Back
Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 141. Back
Thus, it is capable of generating infinite information, and certainly the enormous, though finite, information of life. Back
Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, 243. Back
See Exodus 3:14, Job 38:4;, John 8:58, Revelation 1:18, Isaiah 44:6, Deuteronomy 4:39. Back
See Matthew 13:15, John 12:40, Romans 11:8–10. Back
See Matthew 13:16, Acts 26:18, Ephesians 1:18, 1 John 1:1. Back
See Matthew 5:18, 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:21, Psalms 12:6, 1 Thessalonians 2:13. Back

Copyright Notice

The Devoted Son

On January 29, 2008June 20, 2008 By KateIn VariousLeave a comment

Years ago, there was a very wealthy man who, with his devoted young son, shared a passion for art collecting. Together they traveled around the world, adding only the finest art treasures to their collection. Priceless works by Picasso, Van Gogh, Monet, and many others adorned the walls of their family estate. The widowed elderly man looked on with satisfaction as his only child became an experienced art collector. The son’s trained eye and sharp business mind caused his father to beam with pride as they dealt with art collectors around the world.

As winter approached, war engulfed their nation, and the young man left to serve his country. After only a few short weeks, the elderly man received a telegram that his beloved son was missing in action. The art collector anxiously awaited more news, fearing he would never see his son again. Within days his fears were confirmed. The young man had died while rushing a fellow soldier to a medic. Distraught and lonely, the old man faced the upcoming Christmas holidays with anguish and sadness. The joy of the season-a season that he and his son had so looked forward to in the past-would visit his house no longer. On Christmas morning, a knock on the door awakened the depressed old man. As he walked to the door, the masterpieces of art on the walls only reminded him that his son was not coming home. He opened the door and was greeted by a soldier with a large package in his hand.

The soldier introduced himself to the old man by saying, “I was a friend of your son. I was the one he was rescuing when he died. May I come in for a few moments? I have something to show you.” As the two began to talk, the soldier told of how the man’s son had told every one of his-and his father’s-love of fine art work. “I’m also an artist,” said the soldier, “and I want to give you this.” As the old man began to unwrap the package, paper gave way to reveal a portrait of the man’s son. Though the world would never consider it a work of genius, the painting featured the young man’s face in striking detail.

Overcome with emotion, the old man thanked the soldier, promising to hang the portrait above the fireplace. A few hours later, after the soldier had departed, the old man set about his task. True to his word, the painting went above the fireplace, pushing aside thousands of dollars worth of paintings. And then the old man sat in his chair and spent Christmas gazing at the gift he had been given.

During the days and weeks that followed, the man learned that his son had rescued dozens of wounded soldiers before a bullet stilled his caring heart. As the stories of his son’s gallantry continued to reach him, fatherly pride and satisfaction began to ease his grief, as he realized that, although his son was no longer with him, the boy’s life would live on because of those he had touched. The painting of his son soon became his most prized possession, far eclipsing any interest in the priceless pieces for which museums around the world clamored. He told his neighbors it was the greatest gift he had ever received. The following spring, the old man became ill and passed away. The art world was in anticipation, since, with the old man’s passing, and his only son dead, those paintings would be sold at an auction. According to the will of the old man, all of the art works would be auctioned on Christmas Day, the way he had received his greatest gift.

The day finally arrived and art collectors from around the world gathered to bid on some of the world’s most spectacular paintings. Dreams could be fulfilled this day; greatness could be achieved as some could say,” I have the greatest collection.” The auction began with a painting that was not on any museum list… It was the painting of the old man’s son. The auctioneer asked for an opening bid, but the room was silent.

“Who will open the bidding with $100?” he asked. Moments passed as no one spoke.

From the back of the room came, “Who cares about that painting? It’s just a picture of his son. Let’s forget it and get on to the good ones.”

More voices echoed in agreement. “No, we have to sell this one-first,” replied the auctioneer. “Now who will take the son?”

Finally, a friend of the old man spoke. “Will you take $10 for the painting? That’s all I have.

“Will anyone go higher?” called the auctioneer. After more silence he said, “Going once, going twice… Gone!”

The gavel fell. Cheers filled the room and someone shouted, “Now we can get on with it and bid on these treasures!”

The auctioneer looked at the audience and announced that the auction was over. Stunned disbelief quieted the room. Then someone spoke up and asked, “What do you mean it’s over? We didn’t come here for a portrait of some old man’s son! What about all of the other paintings? There are millions of dollars worth of art work here. We demand an explanation!”

The auctioneer replied, “It’s very simple. According to the will of the father, whoever takes the son…gets it all.”

Just as the art collectors discovered on that day…The message is still the same…the love of the Father….a Father whose son gave his life for others…And because of that Father’s love… Whoever takes the Son gets it all.

Author Unknown

For the New Believer

On January 29, 2008June 20, 2008 By KateIn VariousLeave a comment

Salvation was the biggest step you will ever take as a human being! Praise the Lord for the Holy Spirit’s conviction on your heart!! (New Testament – Luke 15:10) Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth. Welcome to the family of God! Now, the Bible says that you must grow spiritually. How can you do that?

(1) Read your Bible. Get yourself a King James Bible and start reading the Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Read these books over and over at least 4 times. This is where you will learn about your Saviour, Jesus Christ. Try to read as much as you can each day. After the Gospels, move on to the rest of the New Testament, Psalms and Proverbs (found in the Old Testatement). Put a bookmark on the Table of Contents of your Bible (found at the very beginning) so you can look up the different Books until you learn where they are. Reading every day will be the best thing that you can do for your spiritual walk.

(2 Timothy 2:15) Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

(2) Go to church. Find a good Independent Fundamental Baptist Church (IFB for short) to attend. If there are none in your area, look for a Fundamental Bible Believing Church. Many times they are very much like an IFB church and preach strictly from the Word of God. If you have a job that keeps you from attending church, start praying that God would find you another job that won’t keep you from church. Church is so important because this is where you have an opportunity be with other Christians who can help you, pray for you, and teach you.

(Hebrews 10:25) Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. (3) Get Baptized. The first thing after salvation that a Christian should do is to be obedient and be baptized. God won’t use you in your Christian walk if you cannot even obey Him with this first point.

(Acts 2:38 ) Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

(4) Pray. Jesus taught us how to pray:

(New Testament – Matthew 6:9) After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Jesus does want you to memorize this prayer and only recite it. He says to pray “after this manner” – meaning to use this as an example of how and what to pray for. Pray to the Father in Heaven and remember that He is holy and His name is holy. (New Testament – Matthew 6:10) Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
Remember that God’s kingdom will come soon. Pray for God’s will in your life and in the world (just as His will is done in Heaven.)(New Testament – Matthew 6:11) Give us this day our daily bread.
Ask the Lord to give you exactly what you need for today – whether it is spritual food from the Bible, needs in your family, needs for your friends, someone’s salvation, someone’s health, etc.(New Testament – Matthew 6:12) And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
Forgive those who have hurt you or sinned against you and then ask God to forgive you of the sins which you have committed since the last time you prayed to Him.(New Testament – Matthew 6:13) And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
Ask the Lord to protect you from the enemy (Satan) and deliver you from any temptations that will cross your path. For example, if you are tempted to steal, ask God to keep you from this temptation (and remember to stay away from places that tempt you to steal). Also remember that God has all the power in the universe and this is His creation. He deserves all the glory!

Pray in Jesus’ Precious Name – Amen!

(5) Find new friends. If your old friends tend to lead you to sin, then find yourself new friends. Hang out with people who will not lead you to be tempted. Usually this happens automatically because your old friends won’t want to be around you. Remember, you are a new creature – you are born again and, therefore, your new nature won’t enjoy the old sinful things. You will fall under conviction by the Holy Spirit and you will want to change things.

(New Testament – 2 Corinthians 5:17) Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

(6) Tell others about what happened to you!

(New Testament 1 Peter 3:15) But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

If you want some really good reading material for new Christians, go to Chick Publications – They have some excellent witnessing tracts and you can really grow spiritually by reading their materials.

Please feel free to email me at any time with questions! God bless you on your new journey in Christ!!!

What If…

On January 29, 2008June 20, 2008 By KateIn VariousLeave a comment

What if God couldn’t take the time to bless us today because we couldn’t take the time to thank Him yesterday?

What if God decided to stop leading us tomorrow because we didn’t follow Him today?

What if we never saw another flower bloom because we grumbled when God sent the rain?

What if God didn’t walk with us today because we failed to recognize it as His day?

What if God took away his messge because we failed to listen to the messenger?

What if God didn’t send His only begotten Son because He wanted us to be prepared to pay the price for sin?

What if the door tof the church was closed because we did not open the door of our heart?

What if God stopped loving a caring for us because we failed to love and care for others?

What if God would not hear us today because we would not listen to him yesterday?

What if God answered our prayers the way we answer His call to service?

What if God met our needs the way we give Him our lives?

Author Unknown (but God knows)

The Mistrial of the Ages

On January 29, 2008June 20, 2008 By KateIn Various4 Comments

I read this piece at The Baptist Muse and found it to be a tremendous blessing. Unless one studis the Jewish laws of that time, one misses out on what exactly happened or didn’t happen in the justice system. Excellent piece, Bro. Cardot!!!

Mistrial: A trial that becomes invalid, is essentially canceled, because of a mistake in procedure.

During the time leading up to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, He was led before the Jewish Sanhedrin to face formal charges as they were brought against him. It was at this trial that they ultimately determined his guilty verdict and decided to implement capital punishment. Yet a careful examination of that trial will reveal that it was in violation of many Jewish laws by which the Sanhedrin were directed to follow. It is my intention in this article to prove to you that even if Christ were guilty of the charges he faced his trial was still completely bogus. The laws of justice by which the Sanhedrin were so famous for following were completely thrown out the window as Yeshua or Jesus Christ was led to his crucifixion.

The Great Sanhedrin was an assembly of Jewish judges who comprised the Jewish court of law. This panel included a leader called a Nasi, a High Priest, a vice-chief justice and sixty-nine general members. These Jewish leaders were considered experts in many fields. They were well versed in Science, medicine, chemistry and foreign languages. The priests were experts in the moral law, the elders in the civil law, and the scribes in the ceremonial law.

The Sanhedrin imposed strict regulations upon itself in order to maintain such a high standard and to protect an innocent man from ever being wrongly accused of guilt. This standard, or law code, was called the Mishna. It was this law code that was completely ignored during the trying of Jesus Christ and it is this law code that invalidates any claim at the Sanhedrin’s authority to determine whether Jesus was or was not the Messiah.

The Sanhedrin met before the morning sacrifice. This was illegal. The purpose of this self-imposed regulations was to ensure that the counsel had taken the proper time to prepare themselves spiritually for such a decision. This helped to ensure that the men were “right with God” when handing down important verdicts.

The Sanhedrin met prior to the Sabbath and prior to a feast day. This was illegal. The Sanhedrin were not allowed to meet on these days regarding any matter related to capital punishment. Since the Sanhedrin were required to reconvene on the day following any capital punishment decision, they imposed this law to ensure that they would not have to meet on a Sabbath or on a feast day.

The witnesses did not agree. This was illegal. The Bible is very clear about the consequences of perjury before the court of law. “Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.” (Deut. 19:19). Jesus should not have been crucified that day. Those who witnessed against him should have been nailed to that cross!

Christ’s defense was never allowed. This was illegal. The accused could testify before the Sanhedrin but it was not required. The accused individual’s confession was not enough to condemn them. This ensured that he was not coerced into a confession.

The Sanhedrin continually changed their charges against him. This was illegal. The Sanhedrin began by accusing him of sedition (Mark 14:58; John 2:19). When that was not effective they moved to charge him with blasphemy(Mark 14:63-64). Finally, when they could not get a capital punishment charge based on either of those charges, they appealed to the Romans with the accusation of treason (Luke 23:1-2).

The Sanhedrin presented a unanimous vote. This was illegal. According to Jewish law, a unanimous verdict of guilt required that the prisoner be released. This was an added precaution to safeguard against the counsel not taking the proper deliberations and giving a fair trial. This was also implemented to ensure that a conspiracy was not taking place.

The Sanhedrin never reconvened the next day. This was illegal. The Sanhedrin were required to reconvene twenty-four hours later on all trials that included capital punishment. A member of the panel could change a ‘guilty’ vote to a ‘not guilty’ but a person could not change a ‘not guilty’ to a ‘guilty.’ This was an effort to protect the accused in that a member would sometimes see things more clearly after a good night’s rest and perhaps would be more benevolent.

The above violations are only a few of the many clear infringements on Jewish law and justice that took place during what I have come to call ‘The Mistrial of the Ages.’ Any assertion to the authority of the Sanhedrin in these matters become null and void. They have forfeit any credence that they may like to claim concerning the Messiah. I have laid out the evidence clearly and truthfully. You decide what to do with it!

Aborted Women Speak out

On January 29, 2008June 20, 2008 By KateIn Various4 Comments

by Matt Kaufman

When I was in college, a friend of mine—a conservative columnist who wrote for a decidedly liberal student paper—was fired. The reasons given by the editors were unconvincing, and kept changing; the bottom line was that they just didn’t like his politics. But one claim they made still stands out in my memory. They accused him of fabricating a quote from a woman with a group called Women Exploited by Abortion (WEBA): “I killed my baby.” At first he was told “No woman would ever say that;” later, that it was “libelous.” The column was never published.

The fact is, though, lots of women say exactly what that woman did — and even more of them feel it, very deeply. If you have any doubts, read David Reardon’s Aborted Women, Silent No More, originally published in 1987 and just re-released by Acorn Books.

It may sound strange to speak of “aborted” women, since it’s actually their children who were aborted. But Reardon — who heads the Elliott Institute, specializing in post-abortion research — understands that the women have also been subjected to a type of violence, both physical and spiritual. So he spends some pages simply letting them tell their own stories. Listen, first, to their voices:

Alice: [After the abortion] I didn’t realize why I felt bad. My boyfriend took me home. It wasn’t long after I got home that I knew — it just hit me — that I had killed my baby. . . . I had six years of depression after my abortion. . . . I hated myself. . . . A lot of times I wanted to die. . . .

Carol: One night Jim’s band was playing at a local club and he insisted I go with him. Up to that point [since the abortion] I hadn’t left the house. . . . people still thought I was pregnant. One of the wives came up and said, “You must be thrilled! When’s the due date?” I about died and had to think fast. My emotions about it all were rushing again; and as I looked at Jim, I could honestly say that I hated him. First the abortion and now this! I knew I’d have to lie in order to protect his rapport with our peers. I sadly told her that I had miscarried. We left shortly thereafter because I couldn’t handle the sympathy these people were giving to me — me, a murderer!

Sarah: The thought of having a defective baby . . . was enough to drive me to kill. That says a lot about my morally bankrupt condition.

Those feelings are undeniably real. The most hardened feminists will say they’re misplaced, a product of religious propaganda. And in fact, the women quoted above have embraced Christianity — but after their abortions. Prior to that, and often for years afterward, many who now oppose abortion were active feminists, abortion-rights activists, even atheists. It wasn’t Christianity that first made them feel the guilt. It was personal experience.

Karen: I was twelve weeks pregnant, so they performed a suction abortion. They inserted dilators into my cervix, one after the other, until the largest one was as big around as my little finger. It was really, really painful. . . . They turned on the suction machine. I could feel the baby being torn from my insides. . . . three-quarters of the way through the operation, I sat up. To my right and down, I saw the tube that led out of me, from the vacuum aspirator, and it led into a little glass cylinder. In the cylinder I saw bits and pieces of my little child floating in a pool of blood. I screamed and jumped up off the table. They took me into another room and I started vomiting. They responded by offering me Seven-Up and cookies. It was all just repulsive to me, and I couldn’t stop throwing up.

How many women feel the same way? There’s no way to know; studies are hindered by the natural reluctance of many women to talk about their experience, and of abortionists to cooperate with all but the most sympathetic researchers. Yet even studies by abortion-rights supporters (Reardon cites specific examples) have found substantial numbers feeling “guilty” or “dirty,” confused, violated, sad, lost.

Several studies show one in 10 women who get abortions are subsequently hospitalized for clinical depression or other psychological consequences related to abortion. (Among WEBA women surveyed, the number rose: One in five reported a “nervous breakdown” or “complete mental breakdown.”) For each of those women, numerous others suffer untreated through a string of broken relationships, alternating promiscuity or sexual frigidity, heavy drinking, drugs — behaviors that often were nonexistent or far less pronounced prior to the abortion.

Most important, these problems don’t go away or lessen with the passage of time. On the contrary, Reardon says, they get worse. While abortion supporters say women’s primary feeling after abortion is relief, follow-up studies show that regrets, guilt and other emotional consequences grow more severe years down the line. In fact, Reardon writes after reviewing studies from sources with a variety of views on abortion,

The trend is clear to anyone who looks. The negative, WEBA-like abortion experience is the rule rather than the exception. Many aborted women will deny it by hiding their emotions and telling little or nothing of their experience. Others may hide it behind the anger and bitterness they feel toward other persons who were involved, especially the male. But most will admit they are troubled. They simply don’t know what to do other than to try to forget it and move on.

And forgetting it doesn’t work. Not even in sleep, where persistent nightmares about aborted children are common. The sight of a child is enough to spark deep sadness and tears. And then there are cases like Carol’s, while waiting for a doctor’s exam five years after her last abortion:

After the nurse left the room, I started looking around, checking things out. To my shock and complete loss of control, I saw, two feet from my left foot, a suction aspirator machine! I freaked out. I had a total flashback of my abortion experience. I began crying uncontrollably, got up, dressed, and ran out into the hall, hyperventilating. I found the nurse and was near hysteria as I explained why I couldn’t go back in there. She understood, and tried comforting me, reassuring me their office did not do abortions but that the machine was used for other purposes. She took the machine out of the room. I returned shaken and surprised at my lack of self-control. I wonder . . . will it ever end?

This doesn’t mean it’s impossible to recover from abortion. Thousands of pregnancy-care centers across the country help not only in giving women alternatives to abortion, but also in counseling those dealing with its aftermath. Healing, however, can’t come without first facing the reality of what abortion is. And that’s just what women are doing when they say “I killed my baby.”

It’s no mystery why people don’t want to face that: They can’t believe they could be forgiven. Yet here’s where Christianity comes in. Again, the Christian faith isn’t the source of guilt; that comes from what the Apostle Paul calls the law written on men’s hearts. But it is the source of healing — the only place where genuine forgiveness can be found. As Reardon has written elsewhere, before the abortion, Christ condemns it and Satan makes excuses for it. After the abortion, Satan is the one condemning it while Christ forgives it.

That redemptive theme recurs throughout Reardon’s book, making it — for all the ugliness he’s forced to depict — an ultimately uplifting work. Listen to one more voice:

Ila: The legalization of abortion and its rise to social acceptability did nothing to ease the loss and emptiness I felt. Eventually I became so lonely, guilt-ridden, and desperate, that I saw suicide as the only way out of my torment. I overdosed on Valium and Jack Daniels. When my suicide attempt failed, I was admitted to an alcohol rehabilitation program. . . . I prayed for the first time in years, and my prayer was answered. I suddenly realized there was a God out there, and he heard me. . . . My heart began to be filled with joy and hope. . . .

Today I know I must do all I can to help stop legal abortion in this country. I do this by speaking to groups and by reaching out to aborted women, helping them find the one answer to the emotional hell that follows abortions: forgiveness through Jesus Christ. Only in Him do I have hope for my babies who have died, and for my husband and son who live.

Source

One baby in 30 left alive after medical termination!

On January 29, 2008August 19, 2008 By KateIn Various3 Comments

Born after a failed abortion by FIONA MACRAE

This picture is of Gianna Jessen: Born after a failed abortion

One in 30 babies aborted for medical reasons is born alive, a study has found.

They lived for an average of 80 minutes – although in some cases foetuses survived for over six hours.

Most of the babies were born between 20 and 24 weeks of pregnancy, but some had been in the womb for as little as 17 weeks.

The figures, based on a study of West Midlands hospitals, has reignited the abortion debate, with pro-life campaigners demanding the time limit for terminations be cut.

Researchers looked at the outcome of 3,189 abortions performed on seriously handicapped foetuses at 20 hospitals between 1995 and 2004.

It showed that 102 – or around one in 30 – aborted for reasons such as Down’s Syndrome and heart defects, were born alive.

Abortions are allowed to be carried out if the pregnancy is shown to have an adverse effect on the mental health and wellbeing of the mother up until the 24th week of pregnancy.

Beyond this point, the procedure is only sanctioned if the baby has a severe disability or if the mother’s life is at risk.

The latest study, carried out by experts from the West Midlands Perinatal Institute and published in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, showed that three per cent of aborted disabled babies were born alive.

Most of the abortions studied were medical abortions. These involve a women being given a series of pills, taken in two doses two days apart.

The first dose, a single tablet of mifepristone, blocks the pregnancy hormones that normally ensure the womb’s lining holds on to the fertilised egg. The second dose, of four tablets containing hormone-like prostaglandins, triggers contractions and a miscarriage.

The death of the baby is a result of the trauma of the early birth, rather than the tablets itself, meaning, in rare occasions, some babies may survive the process.

From 22 weeks, the tablets should be preceded by a lethal injection into the baby’s heart to ensure the baby is dead before the procedure goes any further.

If these babies are born alive, it suggests they weren’t given the heart-stopping injection – perhaps because the doctor thought it would have been too traumatic for the mother. The figures follow several studies which show that babies born at 23 and 24 weeks are capable of surviving.

While there is no suggestion that any of the babies documented in the West Midlands study lived for more than a few hours, doctors in Norwich are currently treating a toddler born at 24 weeks after three botched terminations.

He was born three years ago and is still alive.

Campaigners said it was likely the Midlands figures were just the tip of the iceberg as the region only accounts for around a tenth of the babies born in the country each year.

In addition, the study only looked at babies whose lives were ended because of disability.

However, most abortions are carried out on ‘healthy’ babies for social reasons. Julia Millington of the pro-life group Alive and Kicking said: “This can’t just be happening in the West Midlands.

“It begs the question of how many healthy babies must be surviving? It would suggest the true figure must be much higher.

“With live births after abortion occurring in 18 out of the 20 maternity units in the West Midlands alone, it is difficult to comprehend the numbers of babies around the country left fighting for their lives.”

Babies born alive after abortion are entitled to medical care. However, anti-abortion campaigners claim that some are so unwanted, they are simply left to die.

The Department of Health said that key medical associations agreed that the time limit for abortion did not need to be changed.

• Thirty years ago, Gianna Jessen’s mother had an abortion when seven-and-a-half months pregnant.

The abortion failed and, 18 hours later, Gianna (pictured) was born alive.

She suffered cerebral palsy as a result of the botched abortion, yet has defied doctors’ predictions that she would never walk.

In fact she has run a marathon, is an accomplished singer and writer and travels the world to campaign against abortion.

Her mother was 17 when she decided to have the abortion. Weighing 2lbs when she was born, she spent several months in hospital fighting for her life, before being placed in a foster home.

Her cerebral palsy, which was caused by her brain being starved of oxygen during the abortion, was diagnosed at 17 months old. Doctors said she would never be able to crawl or even sit-up unaided, much less stand or walk.

Now, after several operations and years of physiotherapy she has proved them wrong. Gianna does not know why her natural mother chose to abort her.

She said: “If abortion is about women’s rights, then what were my rights?

“No decision is solely yours to make. All decisions affect another human being – whether it is for good or for ill.

“If people are going to talk about abortion, then it’s important for them to know that these babies can be born alive and survive.”

Source

Word of God – Day 15 – The Word Judges

On January 29, 2008July 9, 2008 By KateIn Various1 Comment

(Joh 12:48 ) He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. I love this photograph. As I look at it, it reminds me that God’s Word is sure and firm, like the mountains. The trees may be hidden on the mountain by the fog, but they are still there nonetheless. God’s Word is the same. Jesus spoke in parables because He knew that intellectual Pharisees, Sadducee’s and Scribes would not be able to understand what He was saying. (1 Cor 2:14) But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

The Apostle Paul also wrote that they shared the hidden wisdom of God in a mystery which was ordained by God before the world! (1 Cor 2:6) Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: (1 Cor 2:7) But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: The born-again believer has access to God’s Word (our daily manna) and can understand things that are hidden to the unbeliever. (Rev 2:17) He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it. I can remember reading the Bible prior to salvation and I was bored to tears! The reading was dry as dust and I did not walk away with anything. However, after my salvation, God’s Holy Spirit opened my eyes and I was able to understand what I was reading.

Is it any wonder that the Word is corrupted so much by the world? They simply cannot understand it because they do not possess the Holy Spirit of God, who wrote it! God will judge them according to His Word despite their misinterpretations – despite the fact that they have changed the Word of God – despite the fact that they have taken words out or added words – all because they were duped into believing that God’s Word could not be preserved and, therefore, man’s interpretation of “what is left of the Word” is sufficient! (Joh 12:48 ) He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. (emphasis mine) You cannot get around this verse, my friend! You will not be able to tell God that you did not know about this verse because you have just read it!

It is quite clear. God will judge us by His Word– the Holy Bible. He will not judge us by the laws and teachings of the catholic church, Joseph Smith or the Qur’an. They do not possess the true Word of God. Again, Rev. 2:17 states that God will give us to eat of the hidden manna! Can it be any clearer? His Word is hidden to those who do not believe. It is a mystery to them but to us, it is hidden manna that has been given to us by God Himself! He gives us the interpretation through His Holy Spirit!

God’s Word revolves around Him – His righteousness – His provision for salvation through Jesus Christ. It is not by our own righteousness that we can be saved. (Isa 64:6) But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. Therefore, we must come to God through Jesus Christ and His righteousness alone. (Rom 10:3) For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. (emphasis mine) Oh my friend, do you see it? God says that because you are ignorant of God’s own righteousness, you are try to establish your own righteousness through keeping certain laws or teachings of your church. There is nothing you can do on your own that will gain you one smidgen of righteousness. Nothing!

It is only by being born-again that we can take on the righteousness of Jesus Christ. (2 Cor 5:21) For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. (emphasis mine) It’s Christ’s righteousness that we need to gain entry into Heaven – not the catholic church or Allah! The Word is pure and tried and we can depend on it to guide us to that very righteousness. (Psa 12:6) The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. (Psa 12:7) Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. (emphasis mine) Because God’s Word is pure and He says it is preserved forever, we can be assured that we will be judged according to His Word.

God is the One who will judge us according to John 12:48. Our Judge has provided a way for us to have our sins forgiven through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. It is God who forgives us because it is His to forgive through the sacrifice of His Son. (Rom 8:1) There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. We no longer are condemned if we accept Christ as our one and only Saviour. We are no longer going to be judged because Christ’s blood now covers us.

The unbeliever will be judged because he thought that salvation was through his church and not through Jesus Christ alone. Paul was very clear when he wrote about “working our way to heaven” in the following verses: (Rom 4:2-5) For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. (2) For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. (3) Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. (4) But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. (5)So if you believe that keeping the sacraments, saying the rosary, praying countless prayers, doing penance, attending church daily, etc. will count as righteousness to you, you are sadly mistaken. Your works is the reward of debt. However, the one who realizes that the work of salvation is only through the work of Christ’s shed blood on the cross receives the grace of God and it is counted to him as righteousness – Christ’s righteousness.

My friend, upon your death, you will stand before the Judge and He will judge you according to His Word. John 12:48 states it – so what will you do with this? You now have read it – you now have heard. You can’t say that no one told you because I just told you so. Someone once said that to me and those words led me to the Cross of Calvary and I accepted Christ as my Saviour and the only way to Heaven. You will be held accountable. Mary will not be able to help you on the day of judgment. She will not go to the Father because she has some special power with Him. That is not taught in the Word but is found in the teachings of a church that is leading its people to hell. Joseph Smith will not be able to help you. Nor will Allah will not be able to help you. All these cults lead to destruction – they lead to hell because they do not adhere to the Word of God. You will be judged according to God’s Word. How will you measure up? You won’t be able to – not unless you have accepted Christ as Saviour. He is the only way. (Joh 14:6) Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Why Shouldn’t Christians Accept Millions of Years?

August 16, 2007

Conclusion

Footnotes

Copyright Notice

Share this:

Like this:

Evidence

Past and present

Debate terms

Ultimately, God’s Word convicts

Practical application

Naturalism, logic and reality

Copyright Notice

Share this:

Like this:

by Ken Ham & Jason Lisle

August 9, 2007

God—an Eternal, Uncreated Being?

What Would We Look For?

How Do We Recognize the Evidence of Intelligence?

Living Things Show Evidence of Design!

Who—or What—Is the Designer Then?

Does Natural Selection Produce Design?

Can Mutations Produce New Information?

More Problems!

A Greater Problem Still!

Can Information Arise from Noninformation?

What Then Is the Source of the Information?

God Is the Foundation for Science and Reason

So Who Created God?

How Do We Know the Creator Is the God of the Bible?

Footnotes

Copyright Notice

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: