T Nation

God Created...................


#1

Please don't post until you have read EVERYTHING. Thank you.

Part 1

I believe most of us know that Protestantism is not making the progress it did in earlier days. There has been a strange lessening of enthusiasm for Reformation principles. Issues which were once so very, very clear have now been clouded by modern Protestant theology and interpretation.

In fact, the historic principle of the Bible and the Bible only is now being questioned as the real source of emphasis for Protestantism today.

We want to study some of these subtle changes that have taken place to steal away the power of that gospel message of old. We would like to know why churches have turned away from the clear Bible preaching of God?s Word and put their main emphasis upon social matters and upon a social gospel.

There are two mighty issues facing Protestantism today?evolution and modernism. We are going to take these matters up one by one and see what fearful inroads these heresies have made upon Protestant theology. First of all, we will think about evolution, the theory of evolution.

You know, friends, one of the great marvels of this age is how this philosophical theory became acceptable on a scientific plane. This is something we just can?t understand, because there is nothing, absolutely nothing, scientific about it. It is utterly unscientific.

Now, we all recognize that science insists upon laboratory methods to verify its propositions. Science always says we must prove it. We must go to the laboratory. We must be sure of everything, put it in the test tube. And yet when science begins to deal in theories of the origin of things, friends, there can be no laboratory proof.

There can be no scientific test. After all, no one was here when the world was made. No one was audience to those billions of years which the evolutionists claim for the progression of mankind. So, how could it possibly be scientific?

Now there are only two ways that a person can deal with this matter of the origin of mankind. First, by philosophy and second, by revelation. I have chosen the door of revelation to be the surest and the best. We think God has given us in the Bible a revelation of how things came to be.

But philosophy, on the other hand, instead of having any kind of authority such as the Bible, simply speculates on how it might have happened. Now I have no quarrel with philosophy. If they want to imagine how things could have taken place, I don?t object. But when these speculations are presented as scientific facts, I do object strenuously.

What is this theory that philosophy instituted and science adopted. Well, it?s the idea that way back in the beginning of things there was only a one-celled organism in the whole world, or a tiny monad, as it has been called by some.

And this little monad or one-celled organism, without any intelligent design, without any external force applied, over a period of millions of years, simply evolved through a series of spectacular species changes until it turned from a little one-celled thing into an upright man.

Now really when I say these things, it?s almost with a smile because it?s impossible to even imagine an accidental development of a little one-celled animal into an upright individual with all the complexities of his make-up. Yet this is what evolutionary science has now adopted and which it now teaches as fact.

Now let me give a fantastic illustration of this word evolution as it is used to describe the doctrine of organic evolution. When I use this illustration, friends, please understand that it?s utterly impossible but nevertheless it is a parallel of what the evolutionist is teaching.

Just imagine that the first tiny two-cylinder gas buggy that was ever made was never used by mankind at all. It was simply placed in an open field and left there. According to this theory of evolution, if you just leave something long enough, it?s bound to change.

And so if you leave this little two-cylinder gas buggy there long enough, and a few million years pass by, it?s supposed to change. Without any outside pressure, without any external force applied, without any intelligence involved at all, it?s going to change from that little two-cylinder thing into a four-cylinder improvement.

Then if you will leave it there long enough, it will also develop into a six-cylinder and finally it will grow into a modern twelve-cylinder automobile. But you say, is that really evolution? No, that?s not quite it yet. Actually, if this same process continues and you still leave this modern car out there long enough, if it sprouts wings and then takes off flying as an airplane, that would be evolution.

You say, is it really this preposterous, the theory that is being taught? Listen, friends, it?s absolutely no more improbable?the thing that I have told you?than the theory which is being taught by a lot of scientists.

It?s no more improbable than to think that an amoeba could become a worm and a worm become a fish and a fish an amphibian and that turn into a reptile and that into a bird which changes to a mammal which finally becomes a man. Now that?s precisely what the evolutionists teach. All those changes are supposed to take place by pure accident.

By simply letting nature and time operate upon the little monad, it develops at last into a fully developed complex human being. So you see the illustration is not altogether without parallel.

Now the problem still remains, where did the little monad come from in the beginning? And that?s quite a problem because many scientists don?t want to admit that God had anything to do with creation at all.

For a long time scientists believed in spontaneous generation. What is that? Well, they thought that if you put a pile of old rags in a corner and left them there, after a while a chemical reaction would take place and suddenly out of those rags, life would emerge. Now this, friends, was modern science some years ago.

This was taught by some of the most learned men in the world, spontaneous generation, life just coming into being out of nothing. That became a little unscientific because they finally realized that life comes only from life. But now the scientist is in a quandary if he doesn?t believe in the Bible story of creation. I?m sorry to say that some modern scientists are going back to that old theory again.

Some of them are actually falling back on this theory of spontaneous generation because they have nothing else to believe in. They have absolutely no other explanation as to how the first little monad came into existence or how it arrived on the scene. That is, unless they take the actual teaching of the Scripture about creation.

Perhaps the greatest problem of all is to prove how that little monad became a man. Now there?s a real problem to the scientist who believes in evolution. And you know science has been combing the world looking for some tangible scientific evidence of the change they believe takes place in the progression of these organisms.

They have been searching for a missing link, for some integrating form to show that species will change from a smaller form into a higher form of life. But you know, friends, they have never found a single shred of evidence to prove that it ever took place, or that it ever could possibly take place.

Every bit of evidence supports the story of the Genesis record, that God spoke the world into existence, that God created man as he is now in an upright form. But still, as I say, these people are hard to convince and they don?t want to give up their cherished theories.

Let?s go back to the book of Genesis for a moment now. Genesis 1:27: ?So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.? Now isn?t that clear and simple? It says that God created man in God?s image. Now, what was God?s image, dear friends?

Was it some one-cell form of life? Never! Man was made upright, we are told in the Scriptures, created after the image of God. Now look at verse 11. ?And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.?

How did everything reproduce? After its kind. The grass brought forth grass. The trees brought forth trees. Nothing changed its family lines, in other words. There is no such thing as a changing of species. Pansies will always be pansies. Monkeys will always be monkeys. And men will always be men.

There are no integrating forms to reveal any change from one family to another or from one species to another. Now friends, if the theory of evolution were correct, we should be able to find many, many varied forms of life changing from one family to another. For example, we should be able to find fish who are turning into mammals and mammals who are turning into birds, etc.

But in all the records of civilized man there is no proof of such a change. The scientists will dash madly all over the world if they think some missing link has been discovered. They found some new, strange sounding fish over in Malaya. Immediately the scientists booked a plane to fly over there to see that fish?to see if maybe it didn?t have some arms or if it didn?t look like some other kind of creature except a fish.

But every time they have been disappointed. It just turned out to be a different kind of fish, that?s all. Fish remain fish, and birds remain birds, and monkeys remain monkeys, and they don?t seem to change their family lines at all.

There is a certain fly called the common fruit fly and its scientific name is drosophila, and this fly is unusual in that it actually produces several generations every week. Now this provides an almost perfect setup for scientific observation.

The scientists have been observing the fruit fly for a long time, a hundred years or more. This fruit fly can produce several generations every week. Now, friends, if any change takes place just by the passing of time and the reproducing of successive generations, this fruit fly should show some kind of change after these hundreds and thousands of generations.

Yet, in all of these countless numbers of generations, they have not yet found a single change taking place in the fruit fly. It?s still just like it was thousands of generations ago. And the evolutionists don?t know how to explain it. According to their theory, something should have happened and the fruit fly should have grown up into a big horse fly at least. But nothing has happened. No change has taken place.

All right, another fact which denies this theory is that these family members cannot change their species. They can?t crossbreed. Dogs will not interbreed with cats neither will horses with elephants. Everything seems to reproduce after its kind only, just as God said back in the beginning.

The reason for this is that all of these families have a different number of chromosomes in their cells which means that they can only produce biologically after their kind. There could not possibly be any biological progression from one family or from one species to another. Now changes may take place within the species?yes.

You will get many different varieties developing within a family because of mutational changes. In other words, God didn?t have to create all the different kinds of dogs and the different kinds of birds or cats. He simply made one pair and from it, the varieties have developed according to the mutational changes within those species. But they have never gone across family lines to change into a different family.

That would be transmutation, and it has never taken place in all history and it can?t take place according to the evidence at hand.

Part 2

In our last broadcast we introduced the subject of evolution. We are going to continue that strange subject, I say ?strange? because it has been accorded a status of scientific fact when actually it?s only a theory. Right here I would like to introduce two arguments of the evolutionists based on geology and biology.

Now I have no argument with these sciences, friends, because there is true science. Biology is a wonderful science and so is geology. But I object to taking facts and perverting them into theoretical fancy as sometimes has been done in the name of these sciences.

Sir Charles Lyell is called the father of modern geology and he developed the theory of uniformity which has now become very, very popular in certain scientific circles. The theory of uniformity assumes that every change in nature has always taken place at the very same rate of change that we see it now. In other words, they look back over past history and say that anything that we observe today had to be brought into being through the same changes that are taking place presently.

Now you can understand how this is pure assumption. This man, Sir Charles Lyell, began to dig down into the earth and he found that there are layers or strata of earth. He noticed that the farther down he dug, the older the layers seemed to be. In fact, he discovered older and older articles in those layers, artifacts and pottery and things like that.

So immediately he assumed that the farther down you go, the older the layers of earth become, and the older the civilization which it represents. The scientists eagerly grabbed hold of that idea and modern geology has been based on the assumption that the older civilizations are always represented by the lower strata.

Now, you know something, friends, they discovered in many areas these layers simply have been reversed. They have been turned upside down as though by some violent cataclysmic action of the earth. They have discovered that older beds are right on top with the older artifacts and pottery and the newer layers are down underneath.

For example, down in Florida they found some human bones side by side with animal fossils which were supposed to have become extinct long before man ever appeared on the earth. Well, the evolutionist doesn?t have any answer for this. He doesn?t understand how those human bones got in with all those older articles which supposedly came before man existed.

Up in the Rocky Mountains all the way from Montana to Canada, there is a twenty thousand square mile area where the so-called old strata is resting on top of the new. This flatly contradicts the theory of geology that is usually propounded.

But what caused this upheaval, friends? What caused twenty thousand square miles to be just turned upside down so that the older things came to be left on the surface of the earth? Why the flood, of course. But this is something most scientists don?t believe. They won?t recognize that a flood ever took place.

Up on the very highest mountains, even in the Alps range, they have found marine fossils. Now how did those marine fossils get there? Shellfish, starfish, and all the rest of them. Well, we know how they got there. There was a universal flood at one time which left seashells on the mountains. Now this also explains those layers of earth also.

I?m sure all of you have seen those strata in the sides of a hill. How did they get laid down as they appear in the side of a hill or a mountain? According to geology, it took several million years for each one to be put there. Now that would be true, friends, if the theory of uniformity is true.

If those layers were put down at the same rate that the earth is being built up at the present, then it would have had to take millions of years. But if you take the flood into account, those layers could have been put down very quickly, because when the waters assuaged from off the earth, as the Bible describes it, naturally all this debris and the dead bodies would have been deposited according to their specific weight and would have been laid down in layers.

This would have formed the strata that we now see in the sides of hills. The evolution scientists, of course, won?t accept this. But friends, in some places on the face of the earth, they have found great piles of bones as though there was a tremendous deposit made at some time of dead bodies of animals.

In the Grand Canyon and in some of the caves, they have found paintings and carvings of dinosaurs. Now evidently at one time, man lived side by side with these huge animals. Surely the dinosaurs didn?t do the drawing, did they? And yet, according to the theories of evolution, the dinosaurs disappeared millions of years before man was ever on the stage.

Well how could those men draw pictures of those dinosaurs if they had never seen one? It certainly appears that these men and dinosaurs were here at the same time before the dinosaurs became extinct. What a strange merry-go-round we find in the world because the Bible story of creation is rejected.

In 2 Peter 3:3-6 I read: ?Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 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.?

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: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.? Peter says here that a lot of men are willingly ignorant of the flood. They close their ears to it.

They won?t believe that once upon a time water covered the earth. So today we have this strange situation of the geologist assigning millions and billions of years in order to give time for evolution to take place and the evolutionists assigning billions of years to allow those strata to build up so that the geologists won?t be embarrassed.

They just go around in a circle. Each one defending the other one and neither having a scientific basis for their conclusions. Well, I?ll say this, it takes a lot more faith to believe those theories than it does to believe the Word of God. It really does!

Now what do you think God thinks of all this as He looks down from heaven? God is very patient. He knows our frame. He remembers that we are dust. But, and I say this reverently, I think sometimes there are some things that must try the patience of God. Now understand I?m using that word in the human sense.

I think there are some things that must be difficult as God looks down and sees, not our ignorance, because He can tolerate that, but it?s the pretended wisdom of men that must be hard. God is not very often sarcastic in speaking to mankind, but I want you to look at something here in the book of Job.

Poor Job went through some very hard times as we all know. He suffered a lot and sometimes he even argued a little bit with God. And often when Job spoke he did not know exactly what he was speaking. He made some very rash statements. And one day God talked back to Job in the 38th chapter, verses 1 to 4: ?Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.?

God said, ?I?m going to ask you a few questions, Job.? Here are the questions, ?Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou has understanding.?

God said, ?All right, Job, you think you know so much. You have been talking as though you have all the answers. Where were you hiding when I created this world? Were you around the corner somewhere? Did you see how it took place? Is this why you talk so boldly, because you were there?? Quite a question, isn?t it, friends. And I think God could ask the very same question of some men today.

One day God looks down and sees a little baby lying in a crib waving its rattle and gurgling. Almost the next day, as far as God is concerned, He sees this same little baby standing up and giving a scientific lecture waving his arms and telling the people exactly how the world came into existence billions of years ago.

To that pitiful man, God must desire to say, ?Listen, where were you? Did you see what happened? Yet you think you?ve got all the answers. You know exactly how it took place and how many billions of years it has been since creation.? Friends, the only source book into the origin of things is this Bible, none else. We don?t have any other record of how the world really came into being and how human life came forth. The Bible tells us.

Now some modern Christians try to harmonize the book of Genesis with the theory of evolution by assuming that the days of creation were long geological periods. They say ?Well maybe the first day was a thousand years, or that second day, maybe was ten thousand years.?

Is there anything wrong with believing that? Well, that gives us a little more time, you see, for evolution to take place. Friends, evolution never did take place and God doesn?t need time to do anything. He can do it immediately and instantly. The Bible says, ?He spoke and it was done. He commanded and it stood fast.?

Now let me give you a few points to show that those days could not have been long geological periods. For one thing in the book of Genesis we are told that the first day was made up of darkness and light and the evening and the morning. In verse 5 it says: ?

And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.? Now regardless of how long the period was, we must all agree that it was partly dark and partly light. It had evening and morning and was made up of day and night. All right then, now let?s just imagine for a moment that it was a thousand years or maybe more, every one of those days.

Half of that thousand years, of course, would have to be dark and the other half would have to be light. The Bible makes that very clear. So, we would have five hundred years of light and five hundred years of darkness. How long would vegetation survive in utter darkness, friends? Why, it wouldn?t live at all. There would have been no species of plants living through that long period of darkness.

Here?s something else to think about. The plants were created on the third day and the insects were created two days later. Everybody knows and even the scientists agree that the flowers and plants cannot reproduce without pollenation provided by insects. All of these species would have died out long before the insects came along.

Besides, we are told that Adam was created on the sixth day. He lived through two days of creation week. If those days were long geological periods, it would make Adam several thousand years old. And yet the Bible says plainly he was only nine hundred and thirty years old when he died. So the thing doesn?t fit. It contradicts all of the Bible truth and we have to throw it out and agree that God meant what He said.

The world was created in six literal days and then came the Sabbath. The Sabbath would have no meaning if those days were not literal solar days. The ten commandments that God wrote with His own hand would be meaningless if those days of creation were long periods of time.

Now, please don?t misunderstand me, friends. I?m not making a wholesale condemnation of science, I pass no reflection upon true science at all. I only object to the manipulation of facts to make them support theories that are false theories and do not agree either with the Word of God or with true science.

Part 3

One of the greatest forces working against true religion today, is the growing strength of humanism. In simple language, this is the doctrine which seeks to explain everything on the basis of natural law and human effort. It denies the supernatural acts of God as far as both material and spiritual worlds are concerned. Perhaps this doctrine could be expected from materialistic scientists who insist on laboratory proof for all it?s propositions.

But, friends, we are facing a world of religion which is largely turning away from the Biblical concept of God as Creator, Sustainer and Saviour. High placed theologians have generally rejected the authority of God?s Word?that is, the claims of it?s own inspiration and infallibility. The Bible itself declares, ?All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.?

2 Timothy 3:16. But, what about the book of Genesis, and it?s clear cut account of Creation and the flood? If all Scripture is inspired, then this story of man?s origin must be inspired by God also. Why is there such reluctance to agree with the simple recital of God?s power in calling all things into existence? A few years ago there was scarcely any disagreement among religious leaders concerning the origin of life.

No one was skeptical enough to challenge the authenticity of the Book. It was the only source of absolute truth, and was so recognized by all, save the most defiant atheist or agnostic.

True, many scientists of the day were looking for some other explanation of things than that offered by the Creationists, but most Christians were secure in their Bible-based faith in Genesis 1. Suddenly, the speculative theories of Darwin sprang into view, and the unbelievers grabbed desperately for an explanation of things that did not involve God. The idea that long ages of time could produce all the complexities of plant and animal life, was used as an argument against the special creation spelled out in the Bible.

When Darwin took his famous trip on the Beagle along the coast of South America, he noted that species of animal life on certain of the Galapagos Islands were a little different from the species on other islands. That started the thought in his mind that given enough time and enough geographical separation, plus other factors, entirely different species would be developed, then different genera, different families, and so on.

Without our becoming involved in the endless intricacies of his theory, we may say that Darwin needed only to add the factors of favorable variation and the survival of the fittest in order to account not only for different kinds of life, but for rising levels of life, even up to man.

Now, conservative Christians can agree that Darwin dealt with a fact of nature when he declared that species often varied. What we question is the enormous super-structure of conclusions from those facts. There was a day when men could prove to their complete satisfaction, and to the confusion and rout of their few opponents, that if the world is round, the sailor foolhardy enough to sail endlessly westward would ultimately slip over the side and fall off.

Probably no argument could be more easily proved than that. We can visualize their ?proof? even today by holding up a ball and watching what finally happens to an object on its surface as it moves in any direction from what we call the top side. It falls off. Q.E.D. How simple! At least, so the medievalists thought.

There was only one thing lacking in their simple demonstration and in their logic, and that was a knowledge of the law of gravitation. They thought they understood nature. They did?in part. They thought their conclusion unassailable. But we only smile as we look back on the matter and muse on the fact that an apparently unanswerable argument can suddenly become pointless by the addition of a lone new fact?in this case the fact of gravitation.

For many decades after sceintists began to endorse evolution, liberal-minded theologians endeavored to harmonize the Genesis creation record with the theory of evolution. At last they were able to rationalize that if only enough time could be allowed, there would be room enough for Evolution and the Bible. They reasoned that God could have done the work in the slow four billion year span designated by evolutionary science.

It is amazing that this tragic compromise has leavened the whole structure of modern Christianity to this day. It is even more astonishing when we consider the implications of it. What does the so-called Christian evolutionist believe about creation? Listen, this is the heart of his position: He believes that the great God, presumably infinite in power and wisdom, saw fit to employ the stumbling method of trial and error in creating our world. In other words, God tried one procedure that worked, and carried the world a certain distance upward.

Then after more ages, He discovered further procedures that carried the world a little higher still. And so on, finally, up to man.

All during this long period of trial and error, there were, as Darwin described it, endless exhibits of ?the survival of the fittest.? For example, an animal with a little longer neck could eat a little higher of the green leaves on the trees and so would have a better chance of survival when food was short. .

Hence, the world would be favored with taller species. Or, a certain strain of animal might be fleeter of foot and thus escape the clutches of predatory animals. The net result would be a species of animal with perhaps longer legs or stronger muscles, or possibly both.

According to the evolution theory, man is the end product of the whole evolution chain that began with microscopic creatures in the swamps. He inherits all the past. That means that there run in his blood and dictate to his nervous system, endless urges of the animal kingdom.

In other words, it has been hard for man suddenly to break away from all the evil past. The very first man must have started out under a tremendous handicap. And with all this animal nature, man perhaps shouldn?t be blamed so much for his brutality and violence. Maybe this explains the unprecedented juvenile crime rate, too. Can we blame them for rioting and killing, if they have inherited the urges of an animal past? What a perfect set-up for the modern rationalist and theologians who fear to call sin by its right name.

If our glands are at fault, plus a poor environment, then there can be no personal responsibility for wrong-doing. Believe it or not, this is the basis for a major school of psychology today. And the Christian evolutionist provides the doctrine that makes it sound so scientific and reasonable. But it?s all hog-wash, friends. But he still believes it rather than to believe the simple logical account of the Bible. What has been the result of such unscriptural ramblings?

The result has been the most overwhelming revolution in Christian thinking in the two thousand years since Christ. The evolution theory, of course, allows for no perfect man named Adam at the beginning of the way, and no perfect earth.

Hence there is no place for Moses? account of the fall of man, or for the promise of One who would come to lift man from his fallen state. Nor is there any place for the prophecy of John the Revelator, that God will finally destroy this evil world and create a new heaven and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness.

In fact, there is no place for the word sin as the Bible defines it from Genesis to Revelation, nor for the earlier Biblical ages of earth?s history. Amoeba do not sin, nor do frogs, fishes, monkeys, or any other segment of what evolution describes as man?s ancestors. Nor does evolution even suggest as to when man began to sin as he slowly struggled upward.

Though theologians of our day still use Biblical terms, those terms do not have the same meaning they had in all past time.

Little did theologians realize that by interpreting the days of Creation as long periods of time, they were playing right into the hands of the evolutionists, who think of time as a substitute for the miraculous. Given enough time, plus a dash of imagination and speculation, almost anything can happen.

One of the very reasons why scientists have tended through the years to give a longer and still longer span to the history of our world is that a longer period is needed in order to explain the origin and development of the world and all its inhabitants on a natural basis; that is without the aid of the supernatural. Scientists can never be quite sure, even in their own minds.

Now, the theistic evolutionists, having committed themselves to harmonizing their theology with scientific beliefs, have trustingly gone along with the scientists?back, back, back through the rolling years?and accepted the present four-billion-year estimate for the age of the world.

But what such churchmen evidently forget, is that the scientists have rolled time back into the oblivion of the past in order to find what they feel is a rational, non-supernatural explanation for the world; that is, an explanation that calls for no action by God in the process of the making of the earth and its inhabitants. The churchman?s dilemma is this: How can he insist that he is keeping God squarely in the picture through the four billion years when scientists have set up those years in order to keep everything exclusively within the framework of natural phenomena, which means that God is not in the picture?

Nor has the churchman any way of escape from the dilemma. For him to attempt to inject any evidence of God?s taking any part in the making of the earth, on the assumption that natural processes cannot account for all, is to part company with the scientists, who insist that all we need to do is to add a billion or so more years in order to compass everything within the natural framework.

But what shall we say of the theologian, who calls himself a theistic evolutionist? Only this: Every stride he takes back through the ages in an endeavor to walk in step with the scientists is a stride away from a truly theistic explanation of our earth.

If the scientists, with whom he wishes to agree, have finally carried him back with them to the point where they say it is possible to explain all the phenomena without bringing God into the picture, why not agree with them there also? There seems something a little tragic in the idea of a religious man?s traveling back trustingly for billions of years because he thinks the scientists have the truth, and that he is watching his great God at work, only to discover in the infinity of the past that the scientists took him back that far in order to explain everything without God!

Let modernist theologians protest, and they most certainly will, that they still believe in God. I ask again, ?What kind of God?? Surely not a God who is very important to all the processes of the world. And if God is so unnecessary and everything can be explained on a naturalistic basis, if enough time is allowed, ?Why be concerned about promoting belief in God or giving obedience to His will, or indeed doing anything about God??

The answer to that question is painfully evident. And in that answer, I believe, is found the chief explanation for our present secular age. By the very logic of the evolution-believing theologians, God has become so secondary, even so incidental, as to seem a wholly unimportant force in the universe.

Why not let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die? Surely a God so unimportant to our lives will not bring us into judgment, nor can He be expected to provide for us a life in a world beyond. Obviously, the classic idea of God?a Being all wise and powerful, personally concerned about our lives, simply cannot be harmonized with the whole evolution philosophy.

Part 4

One of the greatest forces working against true religion today, is the growing strength of humanism. In simple language, this is the doctrine which seeks to explain everything on the basis of natural law and human effort. It denies the supernatural acts of God as far as both material and spiritual worlds are concerned.

Perhaps this doctrine could be expected from materialistic scientists who insist on laboratory proof for all it?s propositions. But, friends, we are facing a world of religion which is largely turning away from the Biblical concept of God as Creator, Sustainer and Saviour. High placed theologians have generally rejected the authority of God?s Word?that is, the claims of it?s own inspiration and infallibility.

The Bible itself declares, ?All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.? 2 Timothy 3:16. But, what about the book of Genesis, and it?s clear cut account of Creation and the flood? If all Scripture is inspired, then this story of man?s origin must be inspired by God also.

Why is there such reluctance to agree with the simple recital of God?s power in calling all things into existence? A few years ago there was scarcely any disagreement among religious leaders concerning the origin of life. No one was skeptical enough to challenge the authenticity of the Book. It was the only source of absolute truth, and was so recognized by all, save the most defiant atheist or agnostic.

True, many scientists of the day were looking for some other explanation of things than that offered by the Creationists, but most Christians were secure in their Bible-based faith in Genesis 1. Suddenly, the speculative theories of Darwin sprang into view, and the unbelievers grabbed desperately for an explanation of things that did not involve God.

The idea that long ages of time could produce all the complexities of plant and animal life, was used as an argument against the special creation spelled out in the Bible.

When Darwin took his famous trip on the Beagle along the coast of South America, he noted that species of animal life on certain of the Galapagos Islands were a little different from the species on other islands. That started the thought in his mind that given enough time and enough geographical separation, plus other factors, entirely different species would be developed, then different genera, different families, and so on.

Without our becoming involved in the endless intricacies of his theory, we may say that Darwin needed only to add the factors of favorable variation and the survival of the fittest in order to account not only for different kinds of life, but for rising levels of life, even up to man.

Now, conservative Christians can agree that Darwin dealt with a fact of nature when he declared that species often varied. What we question is the enormous super-structure of conclusions from those facts. There was a day when men could prove to their complete satisfaction, and to the confusion and rout of their few opponents, that if the world is round, the sailor foolhardy enough to sail endlessly westward would ultimately slip over the side and fall off.

Probably no argument could be more easily proved than that. We can visualize their ?proof? even today by holding up a ball and watching what finally happens to an object on its surface as it moves in any direction from what we call the top side. It falls off. Q.E.D. How simple! At least, so the medievalists thought.

There was only one thing lacking in their simple demonstration and in their logic, and that was a knowledge of the law of gravitation. They thought they understood nature. They did?in part. They thought their conclusion unassailable. But we only smile as we look back on the matter and muse on the fact that an apparently unanswerable argument can suddenly become pointless by the addition of a lone new fact?in this case the fact of gravitation.

For many decades after sceintists began to endorse evolution, liberal-minded theologians endeavored to harmonize the Genesis creation record with the theory of evolution. At last they were able to rationalize that if only enough time could be allowed, there would be room enough for Evolution and the Bible.

They reasoned that God could have done the work in the slow four billion year span designated by evolutionary science. It is amazing that this tragic compromise has leavened the whole structure of modern Christianity to this day. It is even more astonishing when we consider the implications of it. What does the so-called Christian evolutionist believe about creation? Listen, this is the heart of his position: He believes that the great God, presumably infinite in power and wisdom, saw fit to employ the stumbling method of trial and error in creating our world.

In other words, God tried one procedure that worked, and carried the world a certain distance upward. Then after more ages, He discovered further procedures that carried the world a little higher still. And so on, finally, up to man.

All during this long period of trial and error, there were, as Darwin described it, endless exhibits of ?the survival of the fittest.? For example, an animal with a little longer neck could eat a little higher of the green leaves on the trees and so would have a better chance of survival when food was short.

Hence, the world would be favored with taller species. Or, a certain strain of animal might be fleeter of foot and thus escape the clutches of predatory animals. The net result would be a species of animal with perhaps longer legs or stronger muscles, or possibly both.

According to the evolution theory, man is the end product of the whole evolution chain that began with microscopic creatures in the swamps. He inherits all the past. That means that there run in his blood and dictate to his nervous system, endless urges of the animal kingdom. In other words, it has been hard for man suddenly to break away from all the evil past.

The very first man must have started out under a tremendous handicap. And with all this animal nature, man perhaps shouldn?t be blamed so much for his brutality and violence. Maybe this explains the unprecedented juvenile crime rate, too. Can we blame them for rioting and killing, if they have inherited the urges of an animal past? What a perfect set-up for the modern rationalist and theologians who fear to call sin by its right name.

If our glands are at fault, plus a poor environment, then there can be no personal responsibility for wrong-doing. Believe it or not, this is the basis for a major school of psychology today. And the Christian evolutionist provides the doctrine that makes it sound so scientific and reasonable. But it?s all hog-wash, friends. But he still believes it rather than to believe the simple logical account of the Bible. What has been the result of such unscriptural ramblings?

The result has been the most overwhelming revolution in Christian thinking in the two thousand years since Christ. The evolution theory, of course, allows for no perfect man named Adam at the beginning of the way, and no perfect earth. Hence there is no place for Moses? account of the fall of man, or for the promise of One who would come to lift man from his fallen state. Nor is there any place for the prophecy of John the Revelator, that God will finally destroy this evil world and create a new heaven and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness.

In fact, there is no place for the word sin as the Bible defines it from Genesis to Revelation, nor for the earlier Biblical ages of earth?s history. Amoeba do not sin, nor do frogs, fishes, monkeys, or any other segment of what evolution describes as man?s ancestors. Nor does evolution even suggest as to when man began to sin as he slowly struggled upward. Though theologians of our day still use Biblical terms, those terms do not have the same meaning they had in all past time.

Little did theologians realize that by interpreting the days of Creation as long periods of time, they were playing right into the hands of the evolutionists, who think of time as a substitute for the miraculous. Given enough time, plus a dash of imagination and speculation, almost anything can happen.

One of the very reasons why scientists have tended through the years to give a longer and still longer span to the history of our world is that a longer period is needed in order to explain the origin and development of the world and all its inhabitants on a natural basis; that is without the aid of the supernatural. Scientists can never be quite sure, even in their own minds.

Now, the theistic evolutionists, having committed themselves to harmonizing their theology with scientific beliefs, have trustingly gone along with the scientists?back, back, back through the rolling years?and accepted the present four-billion-year estimate for the age of the world.

But what such churchmen evidently forget, is that the scientists have rolled time back into the oblivion of the past in order to find what they feel is a rational, non-supernatural explanation for the world; that is, an explanation that calls for no action by God in the process of the making of the earth and its inhabitants. The churchman?s dilemma is this: How can he insist that he is keeping God squarely in the picture through the four billion years when scientists have set up those years in order to keep everything exclusively within the framework of natural phenomena, which means that God is not in the picture?

Nor has the churchman any way of escape from the dilemma. For him to attempt to inject any evidence of God?s taking any part in the making of the earth, on the assumption that natural processes cannot account for all, is to part company with the scientists, who insist that all we need to do is to add a billion or so more years in order to compass everything within the natural framework.

But what shall we say of the theologian, who calls himself a theistic evolutionist? Only this: Every stride he takes back through the ages in an endeavor to walk in step with the scientists is a stride away from a truly theistic explanation of our earth.

If the scientists, with whom he wishes to agree, have finally carried him back with them to the point where they say it is possible to explain all the phenomena without bringing God into the picture, why not agree with them there also? There seems something a little tragic in the idea of a religious man?s traveling back trustingly for billions of years because he thinks the scientists have the truth, and that he is watching his great God at work, only to discover in the infinity of the past that the scientists took him back that far in order to explain everything without God!

Let modernist theologians protest, and they most certainly will, that they still believe in God. I ask again, ?What kind of God?? Surely not a God who is very important to all the processes of the world. And if God is so unnecessary and everything can be explained on a naturalistic basis, if enough time is allowed, ?Why be concerned about promoting belief in God or giving obedience to His will, or indeed doing anything about God??

The answer to that question is painfully evident. And in that answer, I believe, is found the chief explanation for our present secular age. By the very logic of the evolution-believing theologians, God has become so secondary, even so incidental, as to seem a wholly unimportant force in the universe. Why not let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die? Surely a God so unimportant to our lives will not bring us into judgment, nor can He be expected to provide for us a life in a world beyond.

Obviously, the classic idea of God?a Being all wise and powerful, personally concerned about our lives, simply cannot be harmonized with the whole evolution philosophy.

Evolution and Nature

We continue today our fascinating study about the intelligent design of created things which proves the existence of a divine Creator. One of the mysteries of nature was described in the Bible long before it was investigated by science. Let?s read about it now in Job 38:8-11. ?Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb? When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it, And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors, And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed??

What beautiful poetic language we find here to describe the creation of the ocean! It speaks of it as being born and coming forth from the womb. God says that the cloud was the garment of it and a thick darkness was a swaddlingband placed around the ocean at its birth. But then God added, ?Here ye may come, but no further. Here shall thy proud waves be stayed.?

And friends, the scientists of this world have been amazed in learning the secrets of tidal actions. They still don?t understand all the deep, cataclysmic actions underwater which affect the tides and wave patterns. No naturalist on the face of the earth has figured out all the secrets of the swift tidal waves that move to and fro in their own mysterious ways.

By the way, these tidal movements have been in perfect balance to contribute to man?s comfort. I think of the mighty Gulf Stream, for instance. We don?t know very much about it as an ordinary thing, but we do know that life in this United States of America would be almost impossible were it not for the tremendous influence of that great stream.

The Gulf Stream comes up from the Gulf of Mexico and goes along the eastern seaboard and on up into the northern sections of the world. This stream is just like a river flowing through the midst of the sea. You can see that it has a different color. You can tell exactly where the edge of it is, because the water changes color there.

When you look down on it from above you can see just how wide it is; in fact, it is about 70 miles wide and about 3,000 feet deep, and it flows along leisurely on its way from the deep south, going up toward the northern clime. The temperature of the water is 86 degrees when it leaves the Gulf of Mexico, and when it gets up by the Carolinas it is still 84 degrees.

The warming influence of that water actually makes the coast of North America and Northern Europe to be inhabitable. Otherwise, they would simply be frozen wastelands. People wouldn?t be able to live there were it not for the Gulf Stream. The British Isles would be frozen and abandoned. The Maritime Provinces of Canada depend completely upon its warming effect; otherwise those places would be left in frozen desolation.

Now, notice what happens as this water flows north. As it comes to the arctic entrance of Baffin Bay, it meets the frigid Polar Stream rushing out to start southward. There is a titanic collision and struggle between the warm Gulf Stream and the frigid Polar Stream. Now what happens?

Well, the Gulf Stream wins, so to speak, and the Polar Stream dives down thousands of feet underneath and goes right on flowing southward, coming up in the West Indies during their hottest season, where it cools the terrible tropical heat. It was in God?s plan for this to happen.

But as a result of this collision the Gulf Stream is deflected across the ocean where it goes up along the British Isles, making those places livable. In fact, some of those northern lands would be locked in eternal winter without the deflection of the Gulf Stream which creates a warmer climate. Now, friends, did all of this happen by chance and accident?

Did these great streams of water just sort of come into existence by blind chance? Did the Gulf stream get deflected by some casual happenstance? I don?t believe it for a moment! God was behind the entire plan.

Let?s take a quick look at the creatures of the sea, and see how intelligence and design came into the picture. Think of the fish for a moment that inhabit the oceans. I only wish I had time for more details! Fish are constantly subject to attack.

They have enemies within the waters around them and also on the outside?gulls and other birds, which swoop down to make meals of the marine life forms. Do you know that fish have a specially constructed eyeball that is able to look in any and all directions? He can almost instantaneously see behind, below, on the sides, and above.

Furthermore, his eye is designed to take into account the fraction of light. Yes, these fish can see 30% farther than other visual instruments, because God designed the eyeball of the fish to take into consideration the refraction of light. When the oculist manufactures special goggles for divers to wear, they also make them compensate for refraction in the water.

We think this is wonderful, of course, but God did it long before. All fish have that kind of eyeball, yet the evolutionists say it just happened. No goggles could come into existence by chance, friends; neither could the fish accidentally develop specialized eyeballs.

In the waters of Malaya lives a fish with bifocal lens built right into his eyes. This little sardine-sized fish is especially prized for food by seagulls. They are always swooping down and gobbling up this little fish if they can. So the little fish has to watch carefully for the approaching danger of the gulls.

He must have good distance vision, but since he feeds on the microscopic larvae found in the water, he must have very good near vision as well. Do you know that the Creator provided a little membrane that comes halfway up his eye, giving him bifocal vision? He can look up and see the gulls coming; he looks down and can see near at hand the little bits of life that he feeds on.

We think it is wonderful that skilled optometrists and oculists can perfect glasses that permit us to see near and far away; yet, here is a fish that?s been around for hundreds of years, which God made that way from the beginning. It did not just develop blindly. Intelligent design was behind its creation.

Now let?s examine two Pacific coast water birds. I can find no stronger evidence of design in nature than I find in one of these birds called the Ousel. It is a very friendly little bird that lives near mountain streams, and is usually found where the water is very swift-flowing and splashy.

It can be seen floating buoyantly along on the surface of the water, apparently weightless; then suddenly, this bird will sink to the bottom like a piece of lead. I mean that it will just suddenly drop down to the bottom of the stream and begin to walk around, picking up bits of food from the bed of the stream. That?s where he gets most of his food supply.

But the mystery is that after he has taken his fill, he walks over to the bank, shakes himself, and glides off on the surface again like a bit of fluff. It has been discovered that this strange bird has some special equipment, a muscular apparatus which can instantly exhaust every bit of air from his body. He drops down like a piece of lead to the bottom, but then when he walks out, he can breathe in air again and float off on the surface. Now, friends, that is special creation, isn?t it?

The evolutionists would say, ?Well, he needed to have this bit of apparatus and so nature provided it.? They don?t say what ?nature? is, friends. They maintain that it just grew by some accidental development. The truth is that God provided it. He made this particular bird as He did because He saw that it needed this for survival.

Another Pacific coast bird lives on a diet of large worms, which he finds in holes in the sand. Because this worm is down at the very bottom of the hole, the bird must go down into the hole to get the worm out. It so happens that his beak is just exactly the right size to reach down into the hole, but when he gets into the hole, his beak is squeezed in there, and he can?t open it to pick up the worm.

Now it would be a pretty bad predicament for the bird to see a luscious worm, put his beak down, but not be able to pick the worm up! Do you know what God arranged for this particular bird? He created a tiny flap, similar to a surgeon?s forceps, at the bottom of the beak. With this special organ he can easily pick up the worm, pull his beak up, and gobble down his meal.

Isn?t it wonderful that God thought of a little bird and made something special so that it could get food conveniently? Yet men say God didn?t have anything to do with it; it just grew that way because he needed it. ?Nature? came along and made some forceps.

No, God had everything to do with that development, friends. Isn?t it wonderful that we have a God like that? And if He loves the little birds, and provided the necessities for their existence and comfort, don?t you think He is willing to provide everything that WE might need? He knows when a sparrow falls, but He loves us even more!

Some years ago, a clever biologist who did not believe in evolution wrote an article on his findings, titled, ?Evolution Goes to Pieces on a Bee?s Knees.? The author reviewed the fact that evolution teaches that when a need for a certain organ develops in any creature, the organ is produced in response to the need.

Nature itself or some blind chance supposedly comes along and produces the necessary organ in order that the creature might survive. Well, he cited the example of the bees. When bees crawl into the pollen-filled blossoms, they get all stopped up with pollen. In fact, their breathing apparatus becomes so completely clogged that they can?t even breathe while they are inside gathering the pollen.

Now, it so happens that every bee has special brushes located on his knees?stiff brushes, which he uses to clean out his breathing apparatus when he comes out of the blossom so that he doesn?t suffocate. This biologist noted that if it were true that creatures develop special body parts in response to a need, the very first bee to exist did not have them.

Since he did not have any brushes on his knees, he would have suffocated when he went into the flower, and the whole bee family would have become extinct right then and there. Instead of these brushes developing slowly through the ages in response to a need, God made them on the bee so that the very first bee would survive. Otherwise we wouldn?t be seeing any busy little bees flying around.

Well, the conclusion is that God anticipated the needs of His creatures, and made them with all the necessary apparatus. How thankful we ought to be that God can supply all our needs in advance! The Bible says the fool hath said in his heart, there is no God. Only a God of love and power could have made these living creatures as we see them about us.

And if He cares for the tiny animal world, he cares for us too. He loves us as much as He loves that little bird out on the west coast, and He wants to save us, friends. He wants to take us at last to a place where nature will be in perfect balance again and where all the curse of sin will be forever removed.

Evolution & the Body

Today we want to look at one of the most fascinating evidences of creation as opposed to evolution. In no other area is so much heated conviction and dogmatism revealed. Now the reason for this is because we?re dealing with a doctrine that cannot be proven scientifically, or by any of the commonly applied laboratory methods.

After all, no one was here when the earth was made and when life was first created. Our belief in this matter must be based on faith. In the case of the creationist, his faith is placed in the Bible. But the evolutionist puts his faith in philosophy. Since there is no scientific evidence, certain theories may be propounded in seeking an explanation of the physical world around us, but they must not be presented as scientific truth.

Believe me, friend, it?s a world of miracle and marvel. The evolutionist and creationist all look upon the same intricate pattern of life and organization, but their explanation of the world is entirely different. From the microscopic to the immense, tremendous wonders are revealed in both form and function.
I don?t think any should stir us with more astonishment than the body itself.

How can the evolutionist explain the existence of such a delicate, complex machine as the human system? There is only one answer, really, and that is a Mighty, Infinite Intelligence is behind it. The evolutionist says, ?No, nature did it. Blind chance and time produced every organ and developed every function of the human body.??

Now this position is one of the most amazing that we can imagine, friends. Because only a fraction of the wisdom and mystery of our body is even understood by the greatest scientists of the day. Is chance and blind nature able to baffle the keenest intellects of the human race? Could mere happenstance produce the highly complicated functions of both body and mind of a human being?

Utterly fantastic, we can?t believe it for a moment. Every cell of the body is a miracle by itself. By the way, this is the only machine that can repair itself. Man can hardly duplicate even the simplest processes of our bodily functions.

Of course, some of them could be duplicated, but what would it require, dear friends, for man to perform some of the simple functions of our body? It has been estimated that it would require machinery and electronic equipment to fill a building as large as the empire state building. Then it would take all the electrical energy of Niagara Falls to operate the equipment, and all the water of Niagara Falls to keep it cool.

Yet substances are produced in the body by a few microscopic cells in just a fraction of a second that would require weeks to produce by giant machinery that would cover acres of floor space.

According to the evolutionist, of course, man?s origin goes all the way back to a little one-celled amoeba. Proof for this? of course, there isn?t any. The fact is, that until the invention of a microscope, there was no scientific evidence of the existence of an amoeba. There were no fossil remains, of course, because they?re made out of pure protoplasm (which is just like jelly).

Now don?t misunderstand me, friends, I do believe that these one-celled forms of life were in existence from the very beginning of creation as Genesis 1:20 reveals: ?God said let the waters bring forth the moving creatures that hath life.? But I do say that there was no scientific proof about the existence of those things long before man appeared?this is what the evolutionist claims.

Yes, there are multitudes of those one-celled forms, paramecium, protozoa, etc. By the way, the zoologist observing these cells through the microscope can see just as much difference between them as we see between cows and horses. Their methods of moving, of eating, or reproducing are different; but, friends, there is always one thing in common with these one-celled forms of life?they only reproduce after their kind.

There is no reason to believe that an amoeba ever changed into any higher form of life. Now here is a question the evolutionist can?t answer: How is it that the dinosaurs and some of the other great creatures have perished from the earth, literally disappeared from the stage of history; and yet the one-celled ancestor remains here by the billions, and not one of them is in the process of changing after countless of generations of being observed?

Yes, another interesting fact too, the cells are all different in these different families or species. You take chromosomes, for example. These are found in all cells, of course, and they determine the characteristics and the family lines. There is a different number of chromosomes for all species. This makes cross-breeding impossible, by the way.

Cats and dogs can only reproduce after their kind, they can?t form any kind of unholy mixture between the different families of animals. Now this is interesting because it actually fits in exactly with what the Bible teaches. In 1 Corinthians 15:38,39, we read: ?But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased Him and to every seed his own body.

All flesh is not the same flesh but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts and another of fishes and another of birds.? In other words, friends, no matter how much alike they might look on the outside, they?re all different. It?s a different kind of flesh as the Bible puts it. How often a man and a monkey may look alike as far as the external form is concerned! The hand of a monkey and the hand of a man may be very similar.

Now friends, does this prove that there is any kind of relationship between the two forms of life? This is looking at the morphological evidence which is only the external evidence. But we?re more concerned with histology which deals with the minute internal make-up of cells, etc.

Now if there is going to be any scientific evidence, we insist on it being more than just mere external form and shape. It must be based upon some very careful scientific examination, a histological approach, in other words.


#2

continued

It reminds me of a little boy who came in one day and told his dad very excitedly: ?Dad, at last I know how horses are made.? His dad said, ?Well, how is that, son?? ?Why,? he said, ?the blacksmith makes them.? His dad said, ?Oh, no, how did you come to such a conclusion as that?? ?Well,? he said, ?I saw him.?? His father said, ?What did you see? Really, you didn?t see him making a horse.?? He said, ?Well, he wasn?t making it, but he was just finishing one up. He was just nailing his feet on as I came by.?? Well, that is a little bit amusing to us, friends, but really if we just take the appearance of things, we might be led to many false conclusions.

Now what do we find on close microscopic examination of these cells? Well, not only are cells different within families, but even the cells of different organs within the same body differ considerably from each other. Apparently there are certain elements in certain cells for certain organs and they will not function in or for any other part of the body, or any other organ of the body. Now why do I say that? Well, in a living body cells are constantly dying. Most cells can live approximately 28 days and the shortest about 7 days. So many of the 26 trillion cells of the body are replaced completely within every four-week period. Now that?s a tremendous rate of cell replacement, of course, but what happens to all the dead cells? They make a complete circuit in the blood stream and return to the parent organ where they died. For example, the liver cells will enter the blood stream and make a complete circuit and come right back to the liver again; but, friends, those liver cells will not be received by any other organ of the body. They will come back only to the liver. Heart cells will come back only to the heart, they would be expelled by the lungs or any other organ of the body. Now when they return, what happens to them? They?re broken down into component elements and used again in the creation of new cells. Now that?s very interesting, friends. They are almost like a fertilizer to produce other cells in that same organ of the body.

Well, these facts about cells prove beyond any question that man has no relationship to other animals because the bodies are different, the cells are different, and even the different parts of the body itself contain cells that differ from other parts of the body; so there could be no question of one form of life turning into another form. They all have two things in common, bodies of dust and the breath of life; but that ends the kinship. Man has reason and conscience which sets him apart as a different order of being entirely.

I read about one man who was trying to determine if monkeys had any human characteristics. This researcher was trying to get a monkey to put a few simple blocks together, but the monkey wasn?t responding very well and the man finally thought that maybe the animal was a bit embarrassed by his presence, so he slipped out the door and bent down to look through the keyhole to watch the animal. To his utter amazement, he saw on the other side the monkey peering through the keyhole at him from the other side. So he found at least one human characteristic in the monkey?curiosity. No, the missing link is still missing, friends, and always will be. There?s not one instance of animals crossing lines of own families in reproducing. One of the most unreasonable claims of evolution relates to the accidental development of the complicated human body. The marvel of this intricate machine furnishes the strongest proof against the claims of evolution. Only an Intelligent Designer and Master Engineer could have developed this miracle of form and function.

Consider the heart, for example, it?s an amazing pumping machine, about the size of a human fist; but it pumps all six quarts of blood through the entire body every minute. In a lifetime, forty one million gallons of blood will be pumped from each ventricle of the heart. That?s a hundred and fifty thousand tons, by the way. And that little organ has no rest any longer than three-fourths of a second. Every twenty-four hours that heart does an amount of work equal to what the leg muscles of a man would perform in climbing a mountain thirteen thousand feet high. Think of that! The heart, in fact, is a powerful muscle which has a very powerful contraction, but what causes it to beat? Well, it has a kind of electrical timing apparatus called a pacemaker which generates a tiny electrical impulse 70 times a minute which sweeps across the muscle fibers of the heart causing it to contract.

Now, friends, they can call this a pacemaker if they like, but I prefer to call it the power of God. To consider this mysterious generator as a product of chance is just too incredible, we can?t believe that ? not for a moment.


#3

Oh yay. Maybe you could consider posting a link or something?

Anyway, at first glance, this looks like a bunch of happy horse shit. Congrats!


#4

Hey a thread on religion vs. evolution...what a novel idea


#5

got any pictures of the grand canyon dinosaur paintings? I wonder what they look like...


#6

Actually, its called an AV node (pacemaker), but there you go.

I think thats a good summary of the entire argument aginst evolution.

I will now go off and collate all the evidence for it, and then you can read that.

It would take you years.


#7

Have you ever considered something really drastic like studying what the ET really claims instead of building straw men and knocking them down over and over again?

What the hell, why not, two can play that game:

Christianity is BS because Jesus preaches to eat small children and to have gay sex whenever a black cat crosses your path.

Obviously, all Christians are deluded and you cannot take anything serious that they say, because they choose to follow those ludicrous teachings.


#8

Again, you show that you have no grasp of science nor evolution.
You guys are a dangerous bunch of freaks. If I would be an american, I'd be really concerned.


#9

Hey if pookie were here you guys could have an Atheists convention.

Can I have the popcorn concession?


#10

I should have stopped after the utterly and completely moronic use of a 2 cylinder buggy to try and debunk evolution. I am really sorry I didn't. Maybe some people need to learn the difference between organic and inorganic objects?


#11

I am curious what you think of augustine and his apologetics? Would he still be considered an early Church Father? or would he fall in line with what protestant would call a deceived RCC? If so how where we able to form the cannon of the NT correctly with a fallen church?


#12

That's a good point. I believe the current evolutionary theory holds that the grand canyon was cut over millions of years by the Colorado river. And if that were true (holding to evolutionary theory) you would see the different emerging organic species outlined in the fossil record, starting with single cell organisms moving up to fully formed organisms and all the millions of intermediary species.

Well guess what sport? The fossil record of the Grand Canyon reveals fully formed organisms with no intermediary species down to a certain strata of earth/rock and then nothing, nada, zilch! No organic life what so ever. Damn! No how did that happen?

Let's see, inorganic material only and then all of a sudden fully formed organisms. Hummmm!


#13

HAHAHAHAHA!

My neighbours are heathens. The woman is blind. How can that happen? Blind people cannot see. So how could they survive, according to evolution, they should have been dead already! Makes you think...

Please, tell us more about your own private universe. Or better, call a brain ambulance.


#14

Lorisco said:
That's a good point. I believe the current evolutionary theory holds that the grand canyon was cut over millions of years by the Colorado river. And if that were true (holding to evolutionary theory) you would see the different emerging organic species outlined in the fossil record, starting with single cell organisms moving up to fully formed organisms and all the millions of intermediary species.

Well guess what sport? The fossil record of the Grand Canyon reveals fully formed organisms with no intermediary species down to a certain strata of earth/rock and then nothing, nada, zilch! No organic life what so ever. Damn! No how did that happen?

Let's see, inorganic material only and then all of a sudden fully formed organisms. Hummmm!

?
evolutionary theory holds that the grand canyon formed over millions of yrs?

thats geology's field - not evolutionary science.

heres a basic overview:
The Colorado River basin (of which the Grand Canyon is a part) has developed in the past 40 million years and the Grand Canyon itself is probably less than five to six million years old (with most of the downcutting occurring in the last two million years).

Now go here
http://www.kaibab.org/geology/gc_layer.htm

This link shows a basic fossil record and age of rock found in the Grand Canyon.
Oldest fossils are Stromatolites (single celled algae colonies) ? 1.25B yrs in late Pre-Cambrian rock, up to fish teeth in Paleozoic rock (fish being vertibrates and complex organisms) 250M yrs

I dunno what your problem with this is - is it perhaps theres a couple of unconformities in the middle?
heres a definition


Geology. A surface between successive strata representing a missing interval in the geologic record of time, and produced either by an interruption in deposition or by the erosion of depositionally continuous strata followed by renewed deposition

So due to the 2 major unconformities within the strata of the grand canyon, you won't find mid-level species in the fossil record. The erosive power of 450M yrs has wiped them out.

Now go here:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanofr.html

There are bacteria dated in rock at around 3.6B yrs
The oldest known rock is around 3.8B yrs.
So there is a rough 300Million yrs for organic self-replicating molecules to develop.

The oldest fossil in the Grand Canyon is 1.25B yrs. There could have been further stromat. fossils in the record if further metamorphosis had'nt happend (schist).
So possibly the grand canyon could have had a fossil record going back 2B yrs, but geological processes have destroyed anything older than 1.25B yrs.


#15

Burn heathen! Next you're going to say the Earth is round...

Nice post.


#16

Which Christian told someone to "burn heathen"? Which Christian has denied that the earth is round? Stop implying that the Christians on here have this way of thinking. Quit making things up.

Why are you so angry? I know you don't like me and other Christians. Why even say the hateful things that you do? Wouldn't it be better to just not respond? What good comes from being so negative?

I don't want anybody to burn. I hope the best for all the people on here, including you. We are all people with our own individual opinions. There is nothing to get so worked up over.


#17

actually i don't believe a bit of that geological scientific type crap i just posted - just funning ya's!

Really we are on a disc-shaped pancake world, which sits on the backs of 4 elephants, and they all stand on the back of a giant turtle which is slowly swimming through space.
And if any of you clever-dicks asks whats under the turtle - it's more turtles! Turtles all the way down!


#18

Most of these "theories" you are putting forth as what is currently accepted in the scientific community are seriously outdated, some have not been accepted as legitimate for over a hundred years.

No serious geologist believes that geological processes always occur at exactly the same rate. An earthquake is a very obvious counterpoint to that theory. Secondly, while older strata tend to be lower than younger strata, there are many many known exceptions to this. One would be a thrust fault, where one piece of land is pushed over another piece of land. If this occurs, many times older rocks will end up on top of younger rocks.

As to your statement that scientists changing theories because they made mistakes in the past being evidence that they are not to be believed: it is impossible to prove that God exists or doesn't exist, so it isn't exactly a measure of correctness that you don't change your stance on the issue.

This is probably the most ill informed rant I've ever seen.


#19

Stop pulling the "why so angry shiy".

I note a distinct anger in many of Steveo's comments, bt thats fine. Passion is not anger.


#20

Has SteveO ever said "just shut the fuck up"? How does that not sound angry? FightinIrish said this in the "Time Warp" thread.