Friday, February 13, 2015
The Love of Guns is the Root of Much Evil
The love of guns is the root of much evil. I read how Craig Hicks, the alleged murderer of the three Chapel Hill students, prided himself in his gun.
Thursday, February 12, 2015
Four Places Where I like the Genesis Story Better
Four questions the creation story in genesis answers better than the current teachings on evolution:
1. How come no other species has evolved to an advanced intelligence stage? The Bible's answer, is that God placed man over all other creatures. If another species were equal to man, man wouldn't have dominion over them. Says Genesis 1:28: "And, God said . . . have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."
2. Since the inception of the homo sapien, why has not any other species branched off looking different than man, having a little bit of a different form? The thinking among evolutionists, is that there has not been enough time. I like the answer in Genesis better. It says God created man to look like Him. So, if man looked like something else, this wouldn't be so. Genesis 1:27 says, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he he him."
3. Why are there only two sexes? It doesn't matter the species, and it doesn't matter if it is animal life or plant life, in those cases where there is sexual reproduction, it involves a male and a female, just the two sexes. Genesis 1:27 says, "Male and female created he them."
4. How come we can't trace back, just in recorded history, changes in the lion, or the bear, or the fox, or the goose? Actually, I confess, I do not know this for certain, and I should verify it. Still, the answer might be in Genesis 1:24. "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so." Whether evolution took place leading up to the current life forms, what I am interested in is what is happening to the current life forms. Are they changing? If they are, this scripture still applies, but it has better application if the life forms are not changing.
1. How come no other species has evolved to an advanced intelligence stage? The Bible's answer, is that God placed man over all other creatures. If another species were equal to man, man wouldn't have dominion over them. Says Genesis 1:28: "And, God said . . . have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."
2. Since the inception of the homo sapien, why has not any other species branched off looking different than man, having a little bit of a different form? The thinking among evolutionists, is that there has not been enough time. I like the answer in Genesis better. It says God created man to look like Him. So, if man looked like something else, this wouldn't be so. Genesis 1:27 says, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he he him."
3. Why are there only two sexes? It doesn't matter the species, and it doesn't matter if it is animal life or plant life, in those cases where there is sexual reproduction, it involves a male and a female, just the two sexes. Genesis 1:27 says, "Male and female created he them."
4. How come we can't trace back, just in recorded history, changes in the lion, or the bear, or the fox, or the goose? Actually, I confess, I do not know this for certain, and I should verify it. Still, the answer might be in Genesis 1:24. "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so." Whether evolution took place leading up to the current life forms, what I am interested in is what is happening to the current life forms. Are they changing? If they are, this scripture still applies, but it has better application if the life forms are not changing.
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
DNA, not Environment, Might be Driving Force Behind Evolution
One creature grows furry hair and a snout, and runs around on four legs. Another is shapened into somewhat like a garden hose, and crawls around on the ground, Are we to say that nothing more than adaptation to their environment brought such diversity?
To me, it doesn't make sense. It is not enough. There must be something else that steers one creature to become one thing, and another to become another. What is it? The direction of God might be the simple answer. But, in scientific terms, it could be DNA.
Now, I confess I don't know much about DNA.
But, I do understand that the color of our eyes, for example, is determined by our genes, drawing from those of our ancestors. You might have several generations with blue eyes, then along comes a green-eyed child, as green was somewhere back in the genealogy of the person.
So, what if it is the same with determining which animals evolve? What if way when it was just a simple organism, there was DNA in it that provided that some would become apes, some would become fish, and some would become birds. Just like the green-eyed child, you don't necessarily end up with the characteristics of your parent, but rather the DNA hidden for generations eventually comes to play and you grow into an ape, or a fish, or a bird.
Once, while studying abortion, I read how the simple organism that first evolves has a DNA map that dictates what the child will look like. It is all mapped out from the start. Maybe, just as there is DNA that maps out what a person becomes, there is DNA that directs what creatures will evolve.
There is a catch to this theory. It does go against current science. Currently, if I am correct, science holds that there is no end product. The creature evolves in no set direction. If there is advanced life on other planets, for example, then that advanced life form probably does not look like a human. The theory I am putting forth, on the other hand, comes with the thought that there might be end forms. Once the creature reaches a bear, or a horse, or a human, then that is the end, for that is the form dictated by the DNA. The creature might have different varieties, but it locks into being a bear, or a fox or a deer.
(Note: Post slightly altered 2/17/15)
To me, it doesn't make sense. It is not enough. There must be something else that steers one creature to become one thing, and another to become another. What is it? The direction of God might be the simple answer. But, in scientific terms, it could be DNA.
Now, I confess I don't know much about DNA.
But, I do understand that the color of our eyes, for example, is determined by our genes, drawing from those of our ancestors. You might have several generations with blue eyes, then along comes a green-eyed child, as green was somewhere back in the genealogy of the person.
So, what if it is the same with determining which animals evolve? What if way when it was just a simple organism, there was DNA in it that provided that some would become apes, some would become fish, and some would become birds. Just like the green-eyed child, you don't necessarily end up with the characteristics of your parent, but rather the DNA hidden for generations eventually comes to play and you grow into an ape, or a fish, or a bird.
Once, while studying abortion, I read how the simple organism that first evolves has a DNA map that dictates what the child will look like. It is all mapped out from the start. Maybe, just as there is DNA that maps out what a person becomes, there is DNA that directs what creatures will evolve.
There is a catch to this theory. It does go against current science. Currently, if I am correct, science holds that there is no end product. The creature evolves in no set direction. If there is advanced life on other planets, for example, then that advanced life form probably does not look like a human. The theory I am putting forth, on the other hand, comes with the thought that there might be end forms. Once the creature reaches a bear, or a horse, or a human, then that is the end, for that is the form dictated by the DNA. The creature might have different varieties, but it locks into being a bear, or a fox or a deer.
(Note: Post slightly altered 2/17/15)
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
Did Charles Darwin Leave a Big Hole Uncovered?
There must be another driving force besides natural selection in determining what a species looks like. I am not a studied person on evolution, to know if it teaches of other factors. I think to go buy Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species and thumb through it to find if it mentions any other factors guiding the development of features in a species. If Darwin didn't identify any other driving force, he left a big hole in explaining how life came about.
To suppose that all living beings are molded only by their environment is clearly not so.
To suppose that all living beings are molded only by their environment is clearly not so.
Monday, February 9, 2015
Questions about Evolution
I've a lot of questions about evolution, and I might develop some in separate posts. For now, I'll just list some of the questions.
If intelligence is important to survival, why are not all creatures becoming smarter, or are they?
If speaking to humans would help, why does not any other creature adapt to speaking to us?
If evolution is a constant, what will the human evolve into next?
If we were to look at the things we most need to adapt to, would we be able to guess what the next stage of our evolution will be?
Could man have evolved, then been killed off except for two people -- Adam and Eve?
How long does it take to go from one life form to a completely different one? Surely this has been studied, hasn't it?
Is there no such thing as evolution in some species, maybe even most of them that are now on earth? I know this question would quickly be thrown out by the evolutionists. Still, I wonder.
Could the bones being found come from different worlds? Could one earth pass away, so to speak, and be used in the creation of another?
If intelligence is important to survival, why are not all creatures becoming smarter, or are they?
If speaking to humans would help, why does not any other creature adapt to speaking to us?
If evolution is a constant, what will the human evolve into next?
If we were to look at the things we most need to adapt to, would we be able to guess what the next stage of our evolution will be?
Could man have evolved, then been killed off except for two people -- Adam and Eve?
How long does it take to go from one life form to a completely different one? Surely this has been studied, hasn't it?
Is there no such thing as evolution in some species, maybe even most of them that are now on earth? I know this question would quickly be thrown out by the evolutionists. Still, I wonder.
Could the bones being found come from different worlds? Could one earth pass away, so to speak, and be used in the creation of another?
Sunday, February 8, 2015
Is the Creation Story a Precurser to the Theory of Evolution?
The writer of the Bible is the original evolutionist. Well, that is true only if God did use evolution to bring about the creation, which we do not know. But, I ask you to consider if the originator of the theory of evolution might be the person who wrote the Bible, for the story in Genesis might be the first place where evolution is set forth.
Yes, Moses might have gotten to this before Darwin. Maybe, maybe not. It depends on whether God used evolution to create man, and, on that, I don't believe we know.
Read Genesis with an eye that God might have created the earth using evolution, and wonder.
For starters, what of it, that in the story of Genesis, the order of things follows much the same order of that of evolution, plant life coming ahead of animal life, and animal life before human life, as if one leading to the other.
Go on. Study some more. Go to where the story begins.
"In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth." Although I am not a believer in the Big Bang -- maybe I just haven't studied it enough yet -- what it says here is in line with the Big Bang (or, at least with some kind of beginning point), for the heavens and the planets would have come first. You can't have a mortal person unless he has a planet to live on, and you can't have a planet unless it has a universe to be in.
"And the earth was without form and void." "Without form"? "Void"? "Void even leaves open the notion that something was created out of nothing. I believe the universe has always existed, but, with the universe being unending, can one universe be created by a big bang, while other universes already exist? Who knows what happened.
"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." My understanding is that, according to science, about the first step towards making a place where life could be, is that there must be a star for the planet that is to be inhabited. So, that as early as the third paragraph, it says, "God said, Let there be light," is of significance.
"And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so." Does that match with the continental drift?
"And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life." Scientists teach, I believe, that all life came out of the oceans.
Well, I stop here, and give no more examples, for the moment. I do not say these things are right. I only wonder. I know there is a God, and He was the creator. But, I do not know how he went about the creation.
Evolution? If I am to study it, if I am to learn that science says it is a proven and indisputable fact, then I believe it worthy to turn to the scriptures for what they might offer, for they are true and what is in them is true. If I am to study evolution at all, I should reflect on what my scriptures say, pondering, thinking and wondering. My thoughts might be right, or they might be wrong, as I study the scriptures. But, studying them and reflecting on them is the right thing to do.
(Edited Feb. 10, 2015)
Yes, Moses might have gotten to this before Darwin. Maybe, maybe not. It depends on whether God used evolution to create man, and, on that, I don't believe we know.
Read Genesis with an eye that God might have created the earth using evolution, and wonder.
For starters, what of it, that in the story of Genesis, the order of things follows much the same order of that of evolution, plant life coming ahead of animal life, and animal life before human life, as if one leading to the other.
Go on. Study some more. Go to where the story begins.
"In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth." Although I am not a believer in the Big Bang -- maybe I just haven't studied it enough yet -- what it says here is in line with the Big Bang (or, at least with some kind of beginning point), for the heavens and the planets would have come first. You can't have a mortal person unless he has a planet to live on, and you can't have a planet unless it has a universe to be in.
"And the earth was without form and void." "Without form"? "Void"? "Void even leaves open the notion that something was created out of nothing. I believe the universe has always existed, but, with the universe being unending, can one universe be created by a big bang, while other universes already exist? Who knows what happened.
"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." My understanding is that, according to science, about the first step towards making a place where life could be, is that there must be a star for the planet that is to be inhabited. So, that as early as the third paragraph, it says, "God said, Let there be light," is of significance.
"And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so." Does that match with the continental drift?
"And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life." Scientists teach, I believe, that all life came out of the oceans.
Well, I stop here, and give no more examples, for the moment. I do not say these things are right. I only wonder. I know there is a God, and He was the creator. But, I do not know how he went about the creation.
Evolution? If I am to study it, if I am to learn that science says it is a proven and indisputable fact, then I believe it worthy to turn to the scriptures for what they might offer, for they are true and what is in them is true. If I am to study evolution at all, I should reflect on what my scriptures say, pondering, thinking and wondering. My thoughts might be right, or they might be wrong, as I study the scriptures. But, studying them and reflecting on them is the right thing to do.
(Edited Feb. 10, 2015)
Saturday, February 7, 2015
Evolution is a Topic that Should Excite Christians
I do not think evolution is a topic Christians should run from. Rather, it is a topic that should excite us. The creation of man is a religious topic. How God came to place man here is a matter that should be of great interest to us.
My thoughts on what a Christian is, includes that he is a lover of truth, a seeker of truth. Truth and the gospel go hand in hand.
So, if all of science is saying evolution is how we came about, we should turn a listening ear, perk up, and want to know. "Nowadays, it is no longer possible to dispute the fact of evolution itself," writes Richard Dawkins in a book called, "The Greatest Show on Earth."
I cast my eyes up one paragraph from that statement, and find Dawkins noting that once people thought the sun was smaller than the earth, because from the information available to them, that was the reasonable assumption. But, we now have enough evidence that the sun is larger and it is no longer a matter in which new evidence will ever change what we know. Some things will never be disproved, Dawkins says, then adds, "Evolution and the heliocentric theory weren't always among them, but they are now."
If evolution is a set fact -- and it certainly appears it is -- it does not mean there is no God. Dawkins might make such a connection, but he is wrong. Nor does it mean Adam and Eve never existed. Dawkins might think so, but, again, he is wrong.
I do not know, for certain, how God went about the creation, but I see there is great evidence that He used evolution. If He did, He did. I have no problem with that.
My thoughts on what a Christian is, includes that he is a lover of truth, a seeker of truth. Truth and the gospel go hand in hand.
So, if all of science is saying evolution is how we came about, we should turn a listening ear, perk up, and want to know. "Nowadays, it is no longer possible to dispute the fact of evolution itself," writes Richard Dawkins in a book called, "The Greatest Show on Earth."
I cast my eyes up one paragraph from that statement, and find Dawkins noting that once people thought the sun was smaller than the earth, because from the information available to them, that was the reasonable assumption. But, we now have enough evidence that the sun is larger and it is no longer a matter in which new evidence will ever change what we know. Some things will never be disproved, Dawkins says, then adds, "Evolution and the heliocentric theory weren't always among them, but they are now."
If evolution is a set fact -- and it certainly appears it is -- it does not mean there is no God. Dawkins might make such a connection, but he is wrong. Nor does it mean Adam and Eve never existed. Dawkins might think so, but, again, he is wrong.
I do not know, for certain, how God went about the creation, but I see there is great evidence that He used evolution. If He did, He did. I have no problem with that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)