Welcome back, Mrfun!

Mrfun,  Okay, Glad to see you back!  I was intending to answer the other issues, one by one, even if you didn’t return; but it is a lot more rewarding and productive to get good feedback. 

I don’t consider myself to be an “evolution denier.”  I will get back later, when I have more time.  When getting into a discussion about evolution; first we need to explain exactly what we mean by the term “evolution”.  I’ll explain later.  I also will check out the “fundamentalist Christian grandmother letter”, you bring up here.

I suppose you might call me a “fundamentalist Christian,” but that takes some explanation also.  I don’t really label myself anything but  “Christian.”  I am not a Catholic, nor of any protestant denomination.  I identify only with Christ’s church, of the Bible New Testament, which began in 33AD on the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem. See the book of Acts. 

 A lot of huge  errors go on in the name of “Fundamentalism Christian.”  Preaching a “young earth” (as “the Bible (supposedly) proves, or says”) is only one of many examples of false statements made by many preachers.  It’s really scientists vs. preachers, not science vs. the Bible.

About the Qur’an, the reason I had said, “compare the Bible with the Qur’an,” is because it is  clearly obvious that the Muslim Holy Prophet Muhammad, was not a true prophet or messenger of God, like the Muslim faith proclaims, and who the mature, and also  deceived young,  Muslims are willing, and eager to kill themselves along with as many good and innocent people as they can, who do not accept the  Muslim faith for themselves.  I don’t understand terms, such as ‘Muslim extremists,’ when it is clear that what these Muslims are doing  is simply obeying and  following what is written down for them  in the Qur’an, which Muslims consider to be the precise and exact word of God (Allah) word for word, as dictated to the Muslim Holy Prophet Muhammad.  

 One of the first tests of a true prophet from God, is that the prophet, who speaks for God, is NEVER wrong.  Muhammad was wrong almost all of the time.  Muhammad clearly reflects mans’ ignorance at the time he lived, about science and nature, as in the parts of the Qur’an that you quoted.  And, I can quote you many more.  When I asked a Muslim, in my forum at the Daily Record, about that, –he had no rational answer, other than to deny the validity of science itself. You will not find  untrue like statements in the Bible.  If creation is of God, than certainly God knows His own handiwork.  Remember, the Bible is not written to be a science book, such as proving to man that the earth is a sphere and not flat.  Even though the people at the time thought that the earth was flat, along with all kinds of other false beliefs, the Bible makes no such false statements. The point I meant to make, is that you won’t find  false statements in the Bible, like we find in the Qur’an and other so-called holy books, — that in these modern times everyone, even with the slightest education, clearly can see the obvious ignorance , in so many statements in these early books of men, claimed to be of God.  The Bible is the only book that stands up over the years of time and testing.. 

Some preachers today, claim to be modern day prophets.  These are also false prophets.  (See Hebrews 1:1-2).

Later Gator, –dc

ARDI Proves What? –What Makes Us Human?

 ARDI proves what?

Well, first of all ARDI proves that what has been force fed to our children in public schools for so long now, has been wrong.

In the scientists’ own words, ARDI definitely proves that humans did not evolve from apes or chimpanzees. That is the ‘hard proof’ that they have discovered and proved.
 
Everything else remains conjecture, speculation and theory.

I don’t know what they are talking about, or referring to for sure, when they say that their ‘hard evidence’ dispels those “fairy tales and myths.”  If they are referring to the Bible Genesis account of creation, I see nothing in their discoveries of ‘hard evidence’ here that would dispute the Genesis account.

What makes us human?

Have they really proven that humans are no different from the animals, and that humans just evolved into what we are today by chance from lower life forms? Is it because we walk uniquely, like ARDI did; –is that really what makes us human? –dc

　

 

What Makes Us Human?

We live in an age of incredible technological growth. I can remember when my school system brought me the first small computer that I had ever seen. It was a Commodore and the only language that it knew was BASIC. I learned the language and wrote my own programs for my students because there was no commercial software available. My students were absolutely entranced with this machine that would drill them on factual material that they were supposed to be learning. Writing the programs took hundreds of hours. It took over 15 minutes for the computer to load the programs even though they were very simple, and you could only put one ten question drill in the computer at a time because the memory of the computer was only 10,000 bits. You used a cassette to load each program in. I remember hearing about an “Apple” computer that was going to be so much better, but I doubted I would ever see one in my teaching career.

One day I had my students working on a project on the computers and I noticed one of the young ladies with her back to the computer in what teachers call the “pout position.” She was obviously not a happy camper and was giving me all kinds of body language that indicated she did not like what was going on. “What’s the problem Sandy” I asked. “I hate this” she replied. “What is there to hate?” I asked, “You get a chance to learn without having to listen to me!!” “That’s exactly the point,” she replied “No matter how smart this dumb machine is, it still isn’t human!!” In the years since that incident I have found large numbers of students with the same reaction. In our age of technological advancement and incredible machines, it is important to keep in mind what makes us human.

 

INTELLIGENCE

It is not intelligence that sets man apart. The things that man does that really make him different are not related to his IQ. Retarded people do everything that brilliant people do. Having a son that has a high level of retardation and is living with a group of seven people who share his disabilities, I am in constant contact with people who do not score well on IQ tests. These people are still a joy to be with. The laugh, they cry, they create art, they sing and enjoy music, they appreciate beauty, they feel guilt, they have sympathy, they have a need to feel self worth, they worship God and constantly express a spiritual dimension, and they bring great things into the lives of others in a constantly changing and varied way.

In the animal world, we find animals that have very high intelligence. Whales, porpoises, and some apes have been shown to have high reasoning ability and are able to solve problems. Some researchers have placed the IQs of whales and gorillas in the 90s–which is within the range of normal humans. Anyone who has worked with animals extensively knows that they have very high capabilities and do some amazing things. Animals function primarily through a highly developed application of instinctive drives. These instincts function remarkably as long as the animal is in an environmental situation that matches the design of the instinctive drive. The more scientists study animal behavior, the more they realize just how sophisticated and intricate these instinctive drives are. One of our ecological problems is that when man changes the environment in which the animal has been functioning, the animal has a hard time adjusting to the new environment and is frequently threatened with extinction. There are countless examples of this problem–salmon swimming up dammed or polluted rivers, lemmings running off cliffs where land bridges used to be, birds unsuccessfully laying eggs in places where trees used to be, whales beaching in places where man has altered the shoreline or the magnetic pattern of the earth, etc.

 

ENVIRONMENT

One response to this discussion would be to say that humans acquire their humanness through socialization and the conditions under which they grow up. The argument is that we learn to be humans by having all the things it takes to be a human forced on us by our parents and other adults and peers through our childhood. There is no question that we learn a lot but most of those things are not what makes us unique as humans. They are mechanical things or methods that really do not have much to do with our humanness.

There have been numerous studies conducted with animals that are raised in human environments, beginning with Dr. Kellog’s studies of a chimpanzee raised with his son in a controlled environment in which both babies were given the same love, attention, stimulation, and learning opportunities. All of these studies have shown that animals raised in human conditions do not become human. The animal may learn to do some things that humans do–such as make desired responses to stimuli by entering the appropriate data into a computer; but those things that set man apart–like creativity, the ability to be taught to think, language (not communication), worship and the conceptualization of God, guilt, sympathy and compassion–do not appear in any degree. There have been numerous stories of feral children who were supposedly raised by animals, but sensationalism and lack of serious study make the claims of those who promote these cases difficult to use.

 

THE BRAIN

Another proposal that has been made is that man is unique because of his brain. The argument here is that man is an animal that has evolved more completely than other life forms, and all of our unique characteristics are a function of that biological evolution. There are numerous problems with this viewpoint. First of all it needs to be pointed out that man’s brain is not that unique. Animals like whales have brains that are considerably larger than ours. Some scientists studying the human brain have attempted to make arguments for evolution based upon the fact that other animals share brain characteristics with man. From a strictly mechanical viewpoint, the human brain has too many characteristics in common with other animals for it to be viewed as radically different and unique.

Those attempting to make arguments from an evolutionary standpoint are faced with another dilemma–the characteristics that make humans unique are not survival issues. Man’s ability to create art or to worship God are not factors that natural selection can work on to guarantee survival or predict extinction. In fact if anything, these characteristics are likely to cause the death of an individual and prevent the proliferation of his or her genes. Sociobiology finds no solace in the evidence that is available from the human brain.

 

MAN IN GOD’S IMAGE

There is a uniqueness to man that is not rooted in his intelligence, his brain, his training, or his environment. This uniqueness is seen in all of us–the genius and the severely retarded. No culture, race, educational level, IQ, or age dictates these characteristics. The one thing that does offer an explanation is the spiritual dimension of man.

The Bible tells us that man was created in the image of God. The image that is conveyed can not be a physical image or we would all look alike physically, which we clearly do not. The image that is being discussed is man’s spiritual image. Man possesses a spiritual dimension the Bible calls the soul. Jesus said in Matthew 10:28 “Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both the body and soul in hell.” The Bible also refers to spirit in a wide range of applications including some reference to animals. It is clear from the Bible, that man possesses three entities. 1 Thessalonians states it well when the writer says: “…I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

To understand the three parts of man–body, soul and spirit–let us make a comparison to an automobile. I have a car which has a body. The body is physical and is made from the elements found in the crust of the earth. The body of my car will eventually return to the material from which it came. The car also has spirit. The thing that makes the car actually move is the fuel that is put into the gas tank. The fuel is the energy which makes the car able to function. These two components together will not make the car run in a satisfactory manner. With just these two working the car has no direction and is likely to cause destruction. There has to be a component which decides what the car will be used for, whether it will be driven responsibly, and how the other parts of the car are cared for.

The analogy breaks down of course, but it is not far off from our own make up. In the biblical language there are times when spirit and soul are used in ways that are not obvious mainly because of translation problems. The basics are still there and are very clear. We have a body which is dust and will return to dust. We also breath which is the basis of the energy that drives the biological machine. These two components we share with the animal world around us, and we are no different than a dog or a cat in these areas. Our soul is the spiritual component that decides how our bodies and how our energies will be used.

What makes us human is this spiritual make up. It enables us to create art and music. If gives us the capacity and desire to worship and to love in a self sacrificing way. It provides us with the ability to feel guilt, sympathy, compassion, and to be able to put others first. It is this spiritual component that enables us to relate to God and to be able to be influenced by God. Looking to this higher power that works through our spiritual make up gives us the ability to overcome drugs, destructive sexual behaviors, alcohol, pride, greed, selfishness, and all the other things that bring misery to life. We do not believe in our spiritual makeup because it is a religious tradition that has been forced upon us; we believe it because every shred of available evidence points to it and because the things that happen in life demonstrate that animal solutions do not work on problems that are spiritual in nature.

–John N. Clayton

www.doesgodexist.org

 

Joe's Worm Farm, --Free Delivery!

 

 

Bible Accuracy

 My Answer to Mrfun, Issue #1, Bible Accuracy:

“Yet it has been found to be in perfect harmony, 100% accurate, scientifically, medically, and prophetically.”

is incorrect, and worse, not even close to being true.

Did you read the website I gave you earlier? Are you sure you can honestly take that position?” 

In answer, I am posting an article here  by John N. Clayton, renouned scientist, ex-atheist, which reflects my views.  –dc

 What About All Those Mistakes in the Bible

Being involved in a ministry that states that its goal is to convince people that God is, that Jesus is His Son, and that the Bible is His Word brings a lot of interesting mail. Much of it is fairly easy to answer, especially those questions that deal with scientific support for the existence of God. What is not as easy is the challenge that comes from a wide variety of people concerning the inspiration of the Bible. There are a lot of reasons for this challenge being difficult. One problem is that the original manuscripts were not in English; and translation then becomes an issue. Another problem is that the Bible does not address itself just to one area of concern. The scientific accuracy of the Bible is one of the easier areas to deal with, because the Bible is not a scientific work and makes relatively few scientific statements. What about the historical statements in the Bible? How does the psychology, sociology, anthropology, literature, and archeology stack up. No one is an expert in all of these areas, so the question of errors and accuracy becomes much more difficult.

It is not the purpose of this article to take every claimed contradiction in the Bible and explain it. What I would like to do is to attempt to give some practical suggestions which hopefully help analyze the questions involved in a more organized and open way. Before starting this it will be useful to explain the author’s experience in this area of work. When I was a part of organized atheism, I was totally convinced that the Bible was one of the biggest frauds ever foisted on mankind. Since I believed there was no God I logically had to believe that the Bible was the work of humans. If humans wrote it, they had to be from a culture older than my own, and that meant that their ignorance and superstition would be a part of it.

Because I was trained in science and had a keen interest in geology, astronomy, and physics I decided to verify what I already believed about the Bible by analyzing its contents from those fields. What better place could there be to do this than Genesis 1. I learned enough Hebrew to determine the meanings of the words in Genesis, and then set out to show how wrong it was. Over seven years were involved in this project, and at the end of that time I could find no verifiable scientific error in the Genesis account. There were lots of errors in what humans thought and what Christian denominations taught, but not in the actual wording. My respect for the Bible and my contempt for human religions both began at this point. In the thirty years since that time, both of these feelings have grown through experience and study–and both are part of my suggestions to others who may wish to ask if there are logical answers to apparent contradictions in the Bible.

Deal with translation problems. Many claimed contradictions in the Bible turn out to be translation difficulties and do not exist in the original manuscripts. The word “giant” in the King James translation of Genesis 6:1-3 is a good example. Is the Bible maintaining in these verses that there were giant humans on the earth in this account? When I look the key word up I find the word is “nephilem” in the original language, and the word is used in reference to one who opposes God. So how did the word become “giant” in the King James? It took me a lot of digging to find that the King James translators took this section of Scripture from the Vulgate translation and translated the word nephilim as gigantus. The King James translators took gigantus and called it “giant” which is not even close to what the word means.

Someone may react to this discussion in frustration saying that they are not an expert in linguistics and cannot answer all of these kinds of questions. The problem does not require the kind of analysis we have done here. The problem requires one to look up one word–the word in question. This is an especially important issue when numbers come up. Many times a number differs from another number by one letter in the original language. A transcription error, a contextual error which caused someone to change the number, or even a failure to read the manuscript carefully would cause this.

I recently had a man call me to task on my position on the integrity of the Bible by calling attention to a census figure that was given in round numbers. How could you have 3,200 in a population? Would it not be 3,211 or 3,196, but not a whole number? Other numberings in the Bible do come up with seemingly accurate figures to the exact person. (See Numbers 3:42 and Nehemiah 7:66-67.) There is a question of procedure here as well as accuracy. If I have a turnstile that people have to go through to get into a place I can get an accurate count. Suppose I have an auditorium with 1,000 seats. If I have a turnstile people go through to get into the auditorium I could maintain that 983 people were in the auditorium. A newspaper reporter reporting on how many people were in attendance might notice that virtually no empty seats exist and thus report the attendance as 1,000. Both figures are accurate but arrived at in different ways. In ancient times a census might be of all people, of men, of men capable of fighting in combat, or of households. It is not always clear what kind of count the writer is using.

Someone may logically object at this point and say that if God expected us to believe the Bible is inspired, he should protect the accuracy of the documents. There are academic ways that can be used by God to do just this, but God can not protect the Bible without making the Bible a golden calf–an idol. Suppose every time someone translated or copied the Bible they were struck dead if they made an error. Not only would no one attempt to print or translate the Bible, but people would worship the object as sacred instead of revering its contents. It is the Word which has the power to change lives, not the paper and cardboard that makes up the physical book. I could sit down and re-write the Bible inserting my own beliefs and understandings and God would not physically stop me. This has in fact been done by Taylor in “The Living Bible.” We are warned in Revelation 22:19 about doing anything like this, but it would be irrational for God to treat this issue in that way.

Deal with cultural influences. The Bible was not written by Americans for an American audience. Every culture has its own traditions which affect the meanings of phrases and even individual words. Many claimed contradictions in the Bible turn out to be cases where American values and understandings are forced on Hebrew or Greek phrases.

One of the places where this shows up is in the incompleteness many see in the Genesis account. When people ask questions about where Cain got his wife, where the people mentioned as building cities came from, or why numerical differences occur in various Biblical accounts of the same event they are usually not comprehending the way in which the ancient Hebrew writers developed histories. If children are born that are not a factor in a historical event being described, they will frequently not be mentioned. If emphasis is being given to relationships, intermediate steps will be left out. When Jesus’ genealogy is given in Matthew 1:1, for example, the statement made is “Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham.” An American unfamiliar with the culture might assume that Abraham was Jesus’ grandfather.

If there were children born in the Garden of Eden, we would not expect them to be mentioned unless they played a major role in the point being made by the narrative. It is not necessary to propose multiple creations to understand where Cain got his wife or who populated the city he built. The fact that women might not be included in a census is not a problem when the purpose of the census was to establish military prowess. Even questions about the age of the earth, the antiquity of man, and how many visited Jesus’ tomb and when, or how many types of Sabbaths the people of Jesus’ day celebrated are rooted in this area of concern.

Be aware that new data may change the picture. Over the past hundred years, skeptics of the Bible have posed all kinds of challenges to the biblical narrative only to have a discovery show that the Bible was correct. Prior to 1947 it was common for skeptics to maintain that the Bible was written long after the events described in it had taken place. Because of the shortage of documents, it was easy to build a case for a charlatan origin for manuscripts like the messianic prophecies of Isaiah. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947, with the messianic prophecies in tact scholars now had documents much older than the claims of the skeptics. The Hitite nation described in the Old Testament was claimed by some scholars to have never existed, and was used to ridicule those who claimed that the Biblical manuscripts were accurate and true. Today archeological evidence has totally vindicated the bible on this issue. Recently evidence has been found verifying the Biblical records of King David’s rule, and many new digs and examinations of documents like the remainder of the Dead Sea Scrolls will offer new data. Many scholars question the story of the Exodus. The role of the Essenes is suggested as a major player in Christianity’s development by others. In spite of the fact that many investigators are skeptical and even atheistic in their approach, new data continues to flow–much of it supportive of the academic integrity of the Bible. Anyone can suggest that something in the Bible might be erroneous, but the lesson of history is that new discoveries support the biblical narrative and help us understand the first two suggestions more fully.

Be careful that a claimed contradiction is not based upon a modern human assumption. This is probably the most common source of error in looking at skeptic attacks on the Bible. The classic example is the question of the age of the events described in the first chapter of Genesis. There is a mountain of evidence that the earth is more than 6,000 years old. It is a travesty to maintain that humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time, and an insult to the integrity of God to maintain that somehow God faked the whole creation so that the events we see recorded in the rocks and in the sky never really happened. Nevertheless, 60 of the anticreationist groups and the denominational creationists themselves maintain that this is what the Bible teaches.

This journal has devoted enormous numbers of pages over the years to pointing out the evidential and logical problems in these beliefs, and these articles are available in a packet for $1.00 (which pays part of the postage.) Our point here is not to resurrect this area of discussion but to simply point out this is the belief of a group of humans, not a statement in the Bible. No where in the Bible is a date given. Only by a dubious set of assumptions can one use the Bible to set dates on events of Genesis 1.

Similar problems arise when one attempts to prove when Jesus was born. The time and process of the flood has a flood of assumptions which nearly rivals the event. The proper understanding of the book of Revelation is buried in a cloud of human attempts to apply its message to the political and national leaders of today. Even claimed historical errors frequently turn out to be rooted in a belief or factual error held by a present day scholar or group.

The most common illustration of personal bias as the cause of perceived errors in the Bible is seen in “The Jesus Seminar” and its several spinoff groups. Like many skeptics, we see these groups starting out their attack on the Bible by believing that biblical inspiration is too hard for a modern learned person to believe. If I begin my study of the Bible by saying “I know it can’t possibly be right” then we are going to find errors whether they are there or not. Over the years I have had a number of exchanges with people over the issues I have attempted to address in this article. One common thread that was present in my antagonists was their approach to understanding of a biblical passage. If the Bible stated something that had three explanations and if one of the explanations was totally ridiculous, that was the interpretation they would take. In all fairness, my antagonists would charge that I would take a positive interpretation of the passage no matter what. I have to plead guilty to that charge. I have seen so much good done, so many shattered lives put back together, and so many people blessed by principles based upon the Bible that I find myself jaded in trying to look fairly at a possible error. Even with that admitted bias, there are some apparent errors in the Bible I cannot explain. They are few in number, inconsequential in influence, and likely to be explained in the future by someone more educated and intelligent than I. To throw the baby out with the wash because we cannot explain every challenge the skeptic offers is a highly destructive myopia. “All scripture is given by God….” (2 Timothy 3:16).

–John N. Clayton         www.doesgodexist.org

Return to the good old days of being a mutant turtle?

Quote an old book written by superstitious people?

 

Mrfun, I am returning to this issue, because I missed pointing out, in my first answer, some most important facts that pertains to what you have written.

First, I will paste here a copy of your statement, which I want to address:

 

 “I read a bit of www.doesgodexist.org.  Here is a quote from it:  

  ‘If we know the creation has a beginning, we are faced with another logical question–was the creation caused or was it not caused? The Bible states, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Not only does the Bible maintain that there was a cause (a creation) but it also tells us what the cause was. It was God.’

 

It apparently feels no shame in quoting an old book written by superstitious people as evidence from the get-go. Find an argument that doesn’t require circular logic.

It’s better to say “I don’t know, I have no confidence in the present explanations” than to say “I know for sure without even remotely convincingly evidence… and you admit you don’t know, so I win!”

 

 Yes. Mrfun,  This is a very important point, which is very strong evidence in itself, that the books of the Bible could only have been written through the divine inspiration of God himself. Note that the Bible consists of 66 books (not one), written by 30 people. Among its authors were a tax collector, a herdsman, a doctor, some fishermen, a philosopher, a preacher, some prophets, a statesman, a king, and a rabbi. It was written over a period of about 1,500 years. Yet it has been found to be in perfect harmony, 100% accurate, scientifically, medically, and prophetically. (Compare the Bible, in these regards, with the Qur’an, or any other religious holy books of men). How can you explain this miraculous phenomena?

 Mrfun, You are absolutely correct, in saying that these were superstitious people of the time. Yes; they believed all kinds of strange things, such as the earth being flat, the earth being carried around on a turtle’s back, or Atlas, and such. Also, they did not have the medical and scientific knowledge that our world possesses today. Why do we not see such errors written in the Bible, these things that the people believed at the time it was written down? The Bible is packed with medical and scientific and prophetic knowledge far beyond the time it was written, and it is found to be 100% accurate, to this very day.

 

Let’s look at the Bible. Is it inspired by God? Is it accurate? 

 

First, I will post a fact as stated in the Bible, followed by the Biblical reference. And then, I will show the common belief of the day in which the author lived: 

 

Fact: Blood is essential to life. (Lev. 17:11-14)

Belief: Disease and spirits reside in blood. To cure disease, bleed patient.

Fact: Both male and female possess “seed of life.” (Gen. 3:15; 22:18).                         Belief: Male has baby in him. Woman = incubator.

Fact: Eating blood of animals forbidden. (Lev 17:12, 14)                                                 Belief: Raw blood used as beverage.

Fact: Do not eat animal that died naturally. (Lev. 17:15)                                                Belief: No restrictions on manner of death.

Fact: Quarantine of certain diseases. (Lev. 13-15)                                                            Belief: No isolation of diseased.

Fact: Do not eat pork, scavengers (in Moses’ day). (Lev. 11)                                      Belief: No food restrictions.

Fact: Principles of avoiding bacterial contamination — one person to another. (Lev. 15:19-33)                                                                                                                                 Belief: No rules of hygiene or isolation.

Fact: Human waste products to be buried. (Deut. 23:12-14)                                           Belief: Human waste left on ground.

Fact: Human body can be opened for surgery. (Gen. 2:21)                                                  Belief: First operations done secretly because populace threatened doctors.

Fact: Burning clothes, washing self after contact with deceased man or animal. (Num. 19:5-22)                                                                                                                                   Belief: No recognition of contagion problems.

Fact: Earth is round, day and night taking place simultaneously. (Isa. 40:22; Prov. 8:27; Luke 17:34)                                                                                                                                 Belief: Earth is flat.

Fact: Earth is not physically supported. (None mentioned and Job 26:7)                            Belief: Earth is held up by four elephants or Atlas (a man), etc.

Fact: The North is empty (Our North Pole points out of our galaxy). (Job 26:7)                 Belief: Seeing a few stars to the North refuted this idea until 1932.

Fact: Space and stars are too large to be measured or counted. (Gen. 15:5; Jer. 33:22) Belief: Attempts to number the astronomical bodies went on until 1932.

Fact: The creation sequence — plants, water creatures, birds, mammals, man, in that order. (Gen. 1:11-28)                                                                                                             Belief: Most had man first. All varied from the correct concept.

Fact: The age of everything in the creation is the same. (Gen.1:1)                               Belief: Different times for different objects.

 

　

　

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

　Evolutionary Man

 

 

 

A Practical Man’s Proof of God

A PRACTICAL MAN’S

 PROOF OF GOD

…by John N. Clayton,  www.doesgodexist.org 

The existence of God is a subject that has occupied schools of philosophy and theology for thousands of years.  Most of the time, these debates have revolved around all kinds of assumptions and definitions.  Philosophers will spend a lifetime arguing about the meaning of a word and never really get there.  One is reminded of the college student who was asked how his philosophy class was going.  He replied that they had not done much because when the teacher tried to call roll, the kids kept arguing about whether they existed or not.

    Most of us who live and work in the real world do not concern ourselves with such activities.  We realize that such discussions may have value and interest in the academic world, but the stress and pressure of day-to-day life forces us to deal with a very pragmatic way of making decisions.  If I ask you to prove to me that you have $2.00, you would show it to me.  Even in more abstract things we use common sense and practical reasoning.  If I ask you whether a certain person is honest or not, you do not flood the air with dissertations on the relative nature of honesty; you would give me evidence one way or the other.  The techniques of much of the philosophical arguments that go on would eliminate most of engineering and technology if they were applied in those fields.

    The purpose of this brief study is to offer a logical, practical, pragmatic proof of the existence of God from a purely scientific perspective.  To do this, we are assuming that we exist, that there is reality, and that the matter of which we are made is real.  If you do not believe that you exist, you have bigger problems than this study will entail and you will have to look elsewhere.

THE BEGINNING

    If we do exist, there are only two possible explanations as to how our existence came to be.  Either we had a beginning or we did not have a beginning.  The Bible says, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Genesis 1 :1).  Most atheists maintain that there was no beginning.  The idea is that matter has always existed in the form of either matter or energy; and all that has happened is that matter has been changed from form to form, but it has always been.  The Humanist Manifesto says, “Matter is self-existing and not created,” and that is a concise statement of the atheist’s belief.

    The way we decide whether the atheist is correct or not is to see what science has discovered about this question.  The picture below on the left represents our part of the cosmos.  Each of the disk shaped objects is a galaxy like our Milky Way.  All of these galaxies are moving relative to each other.  Their movement has a very distinct pattern which causes the distance between the galaxies to get greater with every passing day.  If we had three galaxies located at positions A, B. and C in the second diagram below, and if they are located as shown, tomorrow they will be further apart.  The triangle they form will be bigger.  The day after tomorrow the triangle will be bigger yet.  We live in an expanding universe that gets bigger and bigger and bigger with every passing day.

 Now let us suppose that we made time run backwards!   If we are located at a certain distance today, then yesterday we were closer together.  The day before that, we were still closer.  Ultimately, where must all the galaxies have been?  At a point!  At the beginning!  At what scientists call a singularity!  In 1999, it was discovered that the galaxies are accelerating in their expansion.  Any notion that we live in an oscillating or pulsating universe has been dispelled by this discovery.  The universe is not slowing down, but speeding up in its motion.

A second proof is seen in the energy sources that fuel the cosmos.  The picture to the right is a picture of the sun.  Like all stars, the sun generates its energy by a nuclear process known as thermonuclear fusion.  Every second that passes, the sun compresses 564 million tons of hydrogen into 560 million tons of helium with 4 million tons of matter released as energy.  In spite of that tremendous consumption of fuel, the sun has only used up 2% of the hydrogen it had the day it came into existence.  This incredible furnace is not a process confined to the sun.  Every star in the sky generates its energy in the same way.  Throughout the cosmos there are 25 quintillion stars, each converting hydrogen into helium, thereby reducing the total amount of hydrogen in the cosmos.  Just think about it!  If everywhere in the cosmos hydrogen is being consumed and if the process has been going on forever, how much hydrogen should be left?

Suppose I attempt to drive my automobile without putting any more gas (fuel) into it.  As I drive and drive, what is eventually going to happen?  I am going to run out of gas!  If the cosmos has been here forever, we would have run out of hydrogen long ago!  The fact is, however, that the sun still has 98% of its original hydrogen.  The fact is that hydrogen is the most abundant material in the universe!  Everywhere we look in space we can see the hydrogen 21-cm line in the spectrum–a piece of light only given off by hydrogen.  This could not be unless we had a beginning!

A third scientific proof that the atheist is wrong is seen in the second law of thermodynamics.  In any closed system, things tend to become disordered.  If an automobile is driven for years and years without repair, for example, it will become so disordered that it would not run any more.  Getting old is simple conformity to the second law of thermodynamics.  In space, things also get old.  Astronomers refer to the aging process as heat death.  If the cosmos is “everything that ever was or is or ever will be,” as Dr. Carl Sagan was so fond of saying, nothing could be added to it to improve its order or repair it.  Even a universe that expands and collapses and expands again forever would die because it would lose light and heat each time it expanded and rebounded.

The atheist’s assertion that matter/energy is eternal is scientifically wrong.  The biblical assertion that there was a beginning is scientifically correct.

THE CAUSE

 

If we know the creation has a beginning, we are faced with another logical question–was the creation caused or was it not caused?  The Bible states, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”  Not only does the Bible maintain that there was a cause (a creation) but it also tells us what the cause was.  It was God. The atheist tells us that “matter is self-existing and not created.”  If matter had a beginning and yet was uncaused, one must logically maintain that something would have had to come into existence out of nothing.  From empty space with no force, no matter, no energy, and no intelligence, matter would have to become existent.  Even if this could happen by some strange new process unknown to science today, there is a logical problem.

In order for matter to come out of nothing, all of our scientific laws dealing with the conservation of matter/energy would have to be wrong, invalidating all of chemistry.  All of our laws of conservation of angular momentum would have to be wrong, invalidating all of physics.  All of our laws of conservation of electric charge would have to be wrong, invalidating all of electronics and demanding that your TV set not work!  Your television set may not work, but that is not the reason!  In order to believe matter is uncaused, one has to discard known laws and principles of science.  No reasonable person is going to do this simply to maintain a personal atheistic position.

The atheist’s assertion that matter is eternal is wrong.  The atheist’s assertion that the universe is uncaused and selfexisting is also incorrect.  The Bible’s assertion that there was a beginning which was caused is supported strongly by the available scientific evidence.

THE DESIGN

If we know that the creation had a beginning and we know that the beginning was caused, there is one last question for us to answer–what was the cause?  The Bible tells us that God was the cause.  We are further told that the God who did the causing did so with planning and reason and logic.  Romans 1:20 tells us that we can know God is “through the things he has made.”  The atheist, on the other hand, will try to convince us that we are the product of chance.  Julian Huxley once said:

We are as much a product of blind forces as is the falling of a stone to earth or the ebb and flow of the tides.  We have just happened, and man was made flesh by a long series of singularly beneficial accidents.

The subject of design has been one that has been explored in many different ways.  For most of us, simply looking at our newborn child is enough to rule out chance.  Modern-day scientists like Paul Davies and Frederick Hoyle and others are raising elaborate objections to the use of chance in explaining natural phenomena.  A principle of modern science has emerged in the 1980s called “the anthropic principle.”  The basic thrust of the anthropic principle is that chance is simply not a valid mechanism to explain the atom or life.  If chance is not valid, we are constrained to reject Huxley’s claim and to realize that we are the product of an intelligent God.

THE NEXT STEP

We have seen a practical proof of God’s existence in this brief study.  A flood of questions arise at this point.  Which God are we talking about?  Where did God come from?  Why did God create us?  How did God create us?

All of these questions and many more are answered in the same way–by looking at the evidence in a practical, common sense way.  If you are interested in pursuing these things in more detail, we invite you to contact us.  We have available books, audio tapes/CDs, video tapes/DVDs, correspondence courses, and booklets/pamphlets and all can be obtained on loan without cost.  You can get more information on what is available from our catalog online or by requesting our catalog from the address below.  Click this link for a PDF copy of this article (it will print on 8-1/2 x 14 inch paper).  You can request a printed copy of this pamphlet from:

DOES GOD EXIST?
PO Box 2704
South Bend IN 46680-2704

REFERENCES:
Glanz, James, “Accelerating the Cosmos,” Astronomy, October, 1999.
Hoyle, Frederick, The Intelligent Universe, Hol t, Rinehart & Winston, 1983.
Humanist Manifest I and II, Prometheus Books, 700 East Amherst St., Buffalo, NY 14215, 1985.

08/27/2007

The ‘Ardi Woman’

Re: TIME CNN.    Health & Science

 “Ardi Is a New Piece for the Evolution Puzzle, by Michael D. Lemonick and Andrea Dorfman, Thursday, Oct. 01, 2009.”

 

Yes. Please bear in mind that this is what it is, — a puzzle, and not a fact!

 

This evolutionary theory (about the orgins of life?) has always been a puzzle, and I expect always will be a puzzle, because the pieces never really fit the theory. So what do they do about it? –They just keep coming up with new theories–such as evolution happening in ‘spurts’, and now a ‘new type of branch splitting’–anything in order to try and force the directive that humans must have evolved from lower life forms, and are not made any different from the animals; that is, not made later than animals, and in the image of God.

 

On top of that, they try and tell us that all life is just an accident, and evolves through natural selection from pond scum, or whatever. Maybe this sounds feasable to some trusting souls, but good science does not support it, and I would be happy to debate those who say it does, with evidences of good and rational science.

 

I am just an ordinary person, no expert or scientist, but I still have the God given ability to THINK. I listen to scientists. I look at the evidences they present. Let all the evidences speak for themselves. We need to seek and share our findings in an honest, questioning, respectable and open manner, –and not be hoodwinked by those with an agenda, able to overwhelm others by an image of supposedly superior intellect and knowledge. I say, show me your finding and facts; –but don’t tell me what to believe. I will look at the evidences themselves, thank you. I will consider the substance provided that backs up your belief. Maybe I will be convinced to change my beliefs by the evidences you show, or maybe I will feel that there is more to debate.

 

This “puzzle” created by man, in a strenuous attempt to prove mans’ theory that humans did not evolve from humans, but from lower life forms, including chimpanzees and apes. Yet, just listen to their own words, right here in this very article: “It’s clear that humans are not merely a slight modification of chimps, despite their genomic similarity.” Well, DUH !!

 

Did they ever consider or discuss the possibility that humans might have evolved from their own kind, from humankind, –and not from apekind, birdkind, or fishkind? Why not just let the pieces in the puzzle fall into place naturally, instead of always trying to modify their shapes to fit a preconceived theory of mans’ own making?

Let the pieces speak for themselves, and let them fit naturally where they belong. Let’s just be honest. It’s good to analyze and test, but please do not state, imply, or take for granted that science factually proves that humans evolved from apes and lower life forms, when this theory, after all these years, has still yet to be proven.

The problem is, the puzzle pieces of truth fail to fit the preconceived notions of men.

Take a look. Humans were made in the image of God, not apes. THINK! –What does it take to be human? –dc

The 'missing link' between dogs and humans

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ronald Lindsey playing Devil’s Advocate?

• DonColeCartoons
• added 7 minutes ago,  on www.mixx.com
• I am all for freedom of speech and good debate; but this needs to be done with substance and respect. What is the bottom line to doing otherwise? All that is accomplished is to tear at one another, destroy, run down, and promote a senseless mob mentality. Who will listen to who? It seems that Ronald Lindsey is playing Devil’s advocate here. Everyone should be concerned for truth. Truth is our nation’s only hope, and hope for the world. There are some good points made, so why bury them in garbage only to be thrown out? –dc