|
|
posted by: decomputing 11:26 PM
Sunday, July 01, 2007
You know, I can't really say it better than Dr. Jason Lisle did in his article titled "Can creationists be scientists?". So, I'll just quote a couple lines and then link to the full story, so please go visit and enjoy what he has to say. Quote
It has been often said that "creationists cannot be real scientists."
Several years ago, the National Academy of Sciences published a guidebook entitled Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science.1 This guidebook states that evolution is "the most important concept in modern biology, a concept essential to understanding key aspects of living things."
In addition, the late evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky once made the now well-known comment that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
But is a belief in "particles-to-people" evolution really necessary to understand biology and other sciences? Is it even helpful? Are there any technological advances that have been made because of a belief in evolution?
Although evolutionists interpret the evidence in light of their belief in evolution, science works perfectly well without any connection to evolution. Think about it this way: is a belief in molecules-to-man evolution necessary to understand how a computer works, how planets orbit the sun, how telescopes operate, or how plants and animals function? Has any biological or medical research benefited from a belief in evolution? No, not at all.
EndQuote
http://www.answersingenesis.org/us/newsletters/0405lead.asp Labels: Creation
posted by: decomputing 10:52 PM
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Congratulations to one of my hero's in the faith Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis. I have followed this mans ministry for almost 10 years and I am happy to see him achieve this milestone that is about to take place this Memorial Day with the Grand Opening of the Creation Museum Located in Kentucky near the Cincinnati Ohio area.
Ken Ham, in my opinion, is an unsung hero and defender of the Bible and Christian Faith today, with his dedication to using science to prove the Genesis account of Creation and in a day when it is very unpopular to stand up and say "I believe in 6 days of creation" and "I believe in Noah's flood, that covered and destroyed the whole earth." This man relentlessly trudges on with the truth. Lord I pray that you bless this ministry as it continues in Your will and proclaims your words to be true. Labels: Creation
posted by: decomputing 10:32 PM
Sunday, May 20, 2007
For those of you that still wish to be, as Peter puts it, 'willingly ignorant' about the Red Sea being misinterpreted as Reed Sea, here is another thing to contemplate. Consider Nehemiah chapter 9, this takes place after the Babylonian captivity and King Cyrus orders the walls and the Temple of Jerusalem to be rebuilt and later Artaxerxes sends Nehemiah to be governor of Jerusalem and to oversee the rest of the project. The walls are rebuilt and everyone is gathered together and Ezra reads the Law of Moses to them and afterward a prayer is prayed and here is part of it:
Ne 9:9 And didst see the affliction of our fathers in Egypt, and heardest their cry by the Red sea; 10 And shewedst signs and wonders upon Pharaoh, and on all his servants, and on all the people of his land: for thou knewest that they dealt proudly against them. So didst thou get thee a name, as it is this day. 11 And thou didst divide the sea before them, so that they went through the midst of the sea on the dry land; and their persecutors thou threwest into the deeps, as a stone into the mighty waters.
After Ezra dusts off some old documents and the begin to read a part of Moses' account of what took place, they were left with the impression also that the Egyptians were drown in deep waters "thou threwest into the deeps". Red Sea being deep, Reed Sea being but inches.
So, lets give God credit for the dramatic, that He is able to dramatically rescue His people from their enemies when they follow and trust Him. Labels: Creation
posted by: decomputing 9:03 PM
Sunday, April 29, 2007
2Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: Get outta here!! you mean to tell me that Peter actually called this way back then. Number one that they would say "where is he? if God is real then why does he delay his coming? Number two that they willingly are ignorant of a worldwide flood, regardless of all the overwhelming evidence. You know how many times I read this? and bam! one day it just hits ya. Good call Peter. Labels: Creation
posted by: decomputing 6:43 PM
Monday, January 01, 2007
OK, say that evolution took place over millions and billions of years, it shouldn't effect your faith if evolution did occur would it? Well yes because, sin and the curse of death entered into the world through Adam (Romans 5:12). Christ came to die for our sin so that we might have redemption with God and forgiveness of sin and a hope for eternity. There was no death before Adam and Eve and since there was no death then there could not have been millions of years worth of animals being buried in fossil layers. Also When God came to the end of His creation he looked at all He created and said "It was very good," (Genesis 1:31).
Only by mans hand could sin and death enter into the world and only by Christ coming to die for our sin can we have redemption with God and a hope for eternity. If we buy evolutions claim that death and destruction has taken place for millions and billions of years then death happened apart from man's influence. Which in turn means that we don't need Christ to come and die for us because sin and death were not our fault. From there we can begin to say that God didn't create the universe, maybe a big explosion happened which in turn created everything. In this case we may not have a God, and have no morale compass, and no reason for behaving like Christians.
As you can begin to see evolution or even mixing millions of years of creation with evolution can begin to chip away at the very foundation of our faith. It can begin to cast a large shadow of doubt on the reality of God and the purpose of Christ coming to the earth. It amazes me how some great ministers of our faith can stand so strong on critical fundamentals of biblical teaching, but then waver when it comes to the Genesis account of creation. I encourage you to not do this. Genesis is the foundation of our Bible and contains critical information of how creation happened and how those events apply to us today. Stand strong on the word that God gave us and don't waver from it. Labels: Creation
posted by: decomputing 2:07 AM
Monday, November 27, 2006
 |
Watching the National Geographic special on Noah's Ark tonight inspired some thoughts and questions concerning the six day creation. One question that would lead to other questions is: In a perfect world what would you have? What characteristics would you see or not see? Whether they were geological, physical, spiritual, etc.
Lets begin a list of possibilities.
- No death. animal nor human death.
- No pain or suffering.
- No laborious work.
- No rain, snow, cold weather, nor harsh weather of any kind.
- No earthquakes, thus, tectonic plate movements.
- No Volcanoes.
It has been suggested that animals had died but man did not before the fall of man. If there is no death then it would be assumed that death wouldn't affect animals either since through sin death entered into the world (Romans 5:12).
It had not rained (Genesis 2:5), But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground (Genesis 2:6). So, if it hadn't rained, would there be layers of sedimentary rock and dirt? Also, because of sin the earth was cursed.
Genesis 3:17-19 Cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread.
So, if thorns and thistles were created as a part of a curse on the earth, what other possible things came from that? Would there have been volcano and earthquake activity that would cause major geological changes or possibly death? When exactly would volcano and tectonic activity begin? If you are a Young Earth Creationist as myself you'd have to believe that this activity would have started within the last 6,000 to 10,000 years, but was it in Adam's time or in Noah's time? Not that in Adam's time or Noah's times makes that much difference, but rather, if there was a time that there wasn't major geological change (ie. rain, snow, ice, volcano, earthquake) prior to Noah's flood. Could someone dig so far into the ground that they could find a portion of undisturbed soil? Undisturbed meaning not in sedimentary layers laid down by flooding and volcano activity. And would it be evidence of creation having undisturbed soil? If there were "millions and billions" of years of evolution, and there would be constant geological change during this time, then its likely that all soil as we know it would be in sedimentary layers and none would be as it originated even in evolutionary terms. However, from a creationist stand point, the earth is cursed during Adam's time and completely covered in flood water in Noah's time.
If indeed God created the heavens and the earth and created them in a perfect stage as we YEC believe He did. Could one find evidence of it? Can we find evidence of pre-flood, pre-volcano or pre-tectonic activity? If we can, then what would that evidence be? What could we look for? would we just look for pure undisturbed earth?
What other things can be added to our List of possibilities? What other thoughts could be added to our Undisturbed Soil idea?
|
Labels: Creation, Study
posted by: decomputing 9:10 PM
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
 |
I don't think that is completely accurate. It is said that gravity can have an effect on the speed of light and time. The speed of light, as Einstein once put it, is relative as well as time. If you were traveling on a beam of light at the speed of light, other beams of light would appear to stand still, or travel slow. Also, a clock that is at the top of a tall building would appear to run faster than clocks near ground level. There is one very important thing to remember is that God created light before He created the sun, moon and stars. He also created evening and morning before creating the sun, moon and stars (Genesis 1:3-5). Some Young Earth Creationist like to argue that light was created in transit. I don't think that is true but it is interesting to consider that light was created before these celestial bodies were. What do you think??? |
Labels: Creation, Study
posted by: decomputing 6:25 PM
Sunday, November 12, 2006
 |
I just read this article over at answersincreation.org concerning AIG's article about Steve Irwins untimely death. Answers in Creation is an organization dedicated to daily rebuttals of AIG's stance on Young Earth Creationism. Ken Ham (of AIG) in his article, tells us about how many AIG supporters have tried to witness to Steve Irwin by sending him some of their creation books. Greg Neyman made the incorrect statement "they had no chance of reaching Irwin with the Gospel", and "In the scientific community, young earth creationists are not taken seriously".
Dear Mr. Neyman 1st Corinthians 1:17,18 tells us that the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness. The very preaching of the cross is foolishness to the lost, but we have a great commission to do it anyway. Even if Mr. Irwin never receives Christ as his savior, he at least had the chance to receive Him. The Gospel was at least presented to him. I am certainly grateful that someone took the chance to witness to me.
|
Labels: Creation, Study
posted by: decomputing 1:18 AM
 |
On day four of the creation record in Genesis, God creates the sun, moon and stars. Some day-age Creationist believe that this is proof of an ancient, or old earth, since there is no way that we could have had a 24 hour day without these celestial bodies. Why not? Is God subject to the actions of the sun, moon and stars? or are they (sun, moon and stars) subject to God's will? Think of a ruler, a foot measurement (12 inches). Is a foot 12 inches because the ruler dictates that it is? or did man come along and say "This length of space is a foot and I'll make this ruler as a tool so that everyone is on the same page"? It's a tool. And in this way so is the sun moon and stars. As the NIV puts it "...and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years". The sun, moon and stars mark days as the ruler would mark 12 inches. In Genesis 1:3 God created Light and then in verse 5 He called the light Day and the darkness Night, and the evening and morning were the first day. So metaphorically, God created the 12 inches and on the fourth day created the ruler. Even without the sun, moon and stars we still had day and night and evening and morning. Nothing at all here indicates an age of time with the absense of sun, moon and stars, more likely a 24 hour day is indicated. |
Labels: Creation, Study

[ Home | Jokes | Games | Study | Tech | Misc | Bible | Links ]
phildowd.com
PO Box 141
Elmira, NY 14902
|
|
Quotes
|
|
USA Today has come out with a new survey - apparently, three out of every four people make up 75% of the population.
-- David Letterman
|
Labels
Recent Posts
Archives
|