If I say that I am a Christian then I must live as one, or else I am a hypocrite. Too often in my life I have been concerned about what other people think rather than what God thinks. I never want other people to determine how I live my life, or how I respond in various situations. God has proven over and over again in my life (through His guidance, direction and love) that following His Word and His ways are always best. I have never been let down by doing things according to what the Bible says. People on the other hand do let you down. It is for these reasons that I do not want to have my actions determined by other people, but rather by God. At the same time I feel it is very important not to be a person who turns people off by "preaching" at them. I simply want to be a person who believes the Word of God, lives it out with boldness and confidence and does not allow what other people think of me to keep me from doing this. Jesus died on the cross so that I may have a personal relationship with Him, and for me to show even the slightest hesitation to obey Him and acknowledge Him before other people is the highest form of ungratefulness.
I was thinking about this fact as well...I would never even consider denying the fact that I love my wife. I would never be even remotely hesitant to confess in front of others my incredible love for her. Therefore, why would I ever do this for God? How could I ever do this for the One who guides and directs my life, and who has offered me salvation through His Son's death on the cross?
Tuesday, 11 December 2012
Monday, 3 December 2012
When we let fear rule us we make it more powerful than God
When we let fear rule us, we make it more powerful than God. It is amazing how easy it can be to allow fear to determine the actions that you take. Fear of results, fear of what others will think, and many other circumstantial fears, guide our decisions and life steps. What a sad reality. It is scary to think of all that one could accomplish in life if they were to simply trust God and refuse to allow fear to determine their actions. I must ensure that it is God alone that is guiding my steps. I must make sure that I am surrendered to what He wants me to do, for His ways have always proven to be the best course of action for my life. And besides, if He calls me to something, He will always provide the strength and circumstances needed to accomplish the task. These are God's truths, and I know that I have seen them proven over and over again in my life, so I'm not sure why I struggle with trust and obedience so often.
I want God to rule my life, not fear. In order for this to happen, I need to continually seek His will and surrender myself to Him, reminding myself that His ways are always best, and that He has never failed to prove this to me over and over again in my life.
I want God to rule my life, not fear. In order for this to happen, I need to continually seek His will and surrender myself to Him, reminding myself that His ways are always best, and that He has never failed to prove this to me over and over again in my life.
God is in Control, Why do I Force Things?
-I don't understand how and that is why I think sometimes I feel like I have to force things, or I fear, but I can always look back and see clearly what He did, how He did it, and often why. He really does work all out for good, and according to His purposes. He teaches me time and again that I just need to focus on obeying Him and He will work it all out as He sees fit. Thank you Lord!
Is there a God Who created the universe? (Part 3)
Continued from part 2....
Fakes and Mistakes
There have even been proven fake fossils which have at one time been believed to be proof of common ancestry. A popular example was an animal they called an "archaeoraptor". It had the tail of a dinosoaur and the fore limbs of a bird. National Geographic even published the information on this fossil, but a Chinese paleontologist later proved that it was a fake, and that it had been glued together. I understand that this is not an accurate representation of the entire science community; however, the fact that this has happens should be noted. Jonathan Wells states that there are scores of fake fossils out there which "casts a dark cloud" over the field. I am not saying that fossils are not reliable, but this situation certainly does not help its credibility. And it gets worse...
There is the famous "Java Man". This refers to a archeological find by French scientist Eugene Dubois in 1891. Through his find he used the bones to create what seemed to be a half-man, half-ape, or in other words, a missing link. Many people today accept Java Man as proof of evolution. This has since been proven as a completely unrealistic piece of evidence. Upon further research of this find, one will discover that Dubois only found a skull-cap, a femur and three teeth. Therefore, it can be concluded that a great deal of imagination was involved in deciding that these bones belonged to a living organism which looked very much like a half-man, half-ape. Strobel puts it well in saying that in other words, this Java Man, which so many people over the years have bought into as absolute proof of evolution, was created through nothing more than "speculation fueled by evolutionary expectations of what he should have looked like if Darwinism were true". One can only logically conclude that in all likelihood, there are many, many other situations similar to these whereby people believe in "scientific facts" of evolution, which are anything but. Rather, they are misconceptions, which stem from downright misleading information.
Additional information which should be noted regarding Dubois' "Java Man" is as follows:
-Dubois' excavation would have disqualified the fossil from consideration by today's standards.
-The femur apparently didn't really belong to the skull cap.
-Examination by famous Cambridge University anatomist Sir Arthur Keith reveals that the skull cap "was distinctly human and reflected a brain capacity well within the range of humans living today".
-A 342-page scientific report from a fact-finding expedition of nineteen evolutionists discredits Dubois' claims and determines that Java Man plays no part in evolutionary history. (Keep in mind that this is the collaborative decision of nineteen scientists who believe in evolution).
In general, it must be noted that when fossils are found and pieced together, it is not a simple puzzle process. There is a lot of interpretation involved. Dubois' Java Man reveals this, but so have other events in acheological history. For instance, National Geographic once hired four artists to construct a female figure from seven fossil bones found in Kenya. Each artist came up with very different interpretations of what the original organism looked like. One appeared like a modern-day African American woman, one had a heavy gorilla-like brow, one had a missing forehead and jaws that looked like a dinosaur with a beak, while another looked like a werewolf.
All of this helps to display the sad fact that many people believe in evolutionary theory based off of information they have been told, or even seen in text books; which upon further examination is simply not reliable. The reason why texts still publish this information as fact - when it has clearly been proven otherwise - baffles me. The scientific community has long deemed such information as false, yet it is still printed as fact. I simply don't get it.
Jonathan Wells sums up the above arguments against Darwinism as follows:
"My conclusion is that the case for Darwinian evolution is bankrupt. The evidence for Darwinism is not only grossly inadequate, it's systematically distorted. I'm convinced that sometime in the not-too-distant future - I don't know, maybe twenty or thirty years from now - people will look back in amazement and say, 'How could anyone have believed this?' Darwinism is merely materialistic philosophy masquerading as science, and people are recognizing it for what it is. I believe science is pointing strongly toward design. To me, as a scientist, the development of an embryo cries out, 'Design!' The Cambrian explosion - the sudden appearance of complex life, with no evidence of anscestors - is more consistent with design than evolution. Homology, in my opinion, is more compatible with design. The origin of life certainly cries out for a designer. None of these things make as much sense from a Darwiniain perspective as they do from a design perspective."
In other words, what we know to be true clearly points toward design, not Darwinian theory.
Fakes and Mistakes
There have even been proven fake fossils which have at one time been believed to be proof of common ancestry. A popular example was an animal they called an "archaeoraptor". It had the tail of a dinosoaur and the fore limbs of a bird. National Geographic even published the information on this fossil, but a Chinese paleontologist later proved that it was a fake, and that it had been glued together. I understand that this is not an accurate representation of the entire science community; however, the fact that this has happens should be noted. Jonathan Wells states that there are scores of fake fossils out there which "casts a dark cloud" over the field. I am not saying that fossils are not reliable, but this situation certainly does not help its credibility. And it gets worse...
There is the famous "Java Man". This refers to a archeological find by French scientist Eugene Dubois in 1891. Through his find he used the bones to create what seemed to be a half-man, half-ape, or in other words, a missing link. Many people today accept Java Man as proof of evolution. This has since been proven as a completely unrealistic piece of evidence. Upon further research of this find, one will discover that Dubois only found a skull-cap, a femur and three teeth. Therefore, it can be concluded that a great deal of imagination was involved in deciding that these bones belonged to a living organism which looked very much like a half-man, half-ape. Strobel puts it well in saying that in other words, this Java Man, which so many people over the years have bought into as absolute proof of evolution, was created through nothing more than "speculation fueled by evolutionary expectations of what he should have looked like if Darwinism were true". One can only logically conclude that in all likelihood, there are many, many other situations similar to these whereby people believe in "scientific facts" of evolution, which are anything but. Rather, they are misconceptions, which stem from downright misleading information.
Additional information which should be noted regarding Dubois' "Java Man" is as follows:
-Dubois' excavation would have disqualified the fossil from consideration by today's standards.
-The femur apparently didn't really belong to the skull cap.
-Examination by famous Cambridge University anatomist Sir Arthur Keith reveals that the skull cap "was distinctly human and reflected a brain capacity well within the range of humans living today".
-A 342-page scientific report from a fact-finding expedition of nineteen evolutionists discredits Dubois' claims and determines that Java Man plays no part in evolutionary history. (Keep in mind that this is the collaborative decision of nineteen scientists who believe in evolution).
In general, it must be noted that when fossils are found and pieced together, it is not a simple puzzle process. There is a lot of interpretation involved. Dubois' Java Man reveals this, but so have other events in acheological history. For instance, National Geographic once hired four artists to construct a female figure from seven fossil bones found in Kenya. Each artist came up with very different interpretations of what the original organism looked like. One appeared like a modern-day African American woman, one had a heavy gorilla-like brow, one had a missing forehead and jaws that looked like a dinosaur with a beak, while another looked like a werewolf.
All of this helps to display the sad fact that many people believe in evolutionary theory based off of information they have been told, or even seen in text books; which upon further examination is simply not reliable. The reason why texts still publish this information as fact - when it has clearly been proven otherwise - baffles me. The scientific community has long deemed such information as false, yet it is still printed as fact. I simply don't get it.
Jonathan Wells sums up the above arguments against Darwinism as follows:
"My conclusion is that the case for Darwinian evolution is bankrupt. The evidence for Darwinism is not only grossly inadequate, it's systematically distorted. I'm convinced that sometime in the not-too-distant future - I don't know, maybe twenty or thirty years from now - people will look back in amazement and say, 'How could anyone have believed this?' Darwinism is merely materialistic philosophy masquerading as science, and people are recognizing it for what it is. I believe science is pointing strongly toward design. To me, as a scientist, the development of an embryo cries out, 'Design!' The Cambrian explosion - the sudden appearance of complex life, with no evidence of anscestors - is more consistent with design than evolution. Homology, in my opinion, is more compatible with design. The origin of life certainly cries out for a designer. None of these things make as much sense from a Darwiniain perspective as they do from a design perspective."
In other words, what we know to be true clearly points toward design, not Darwinian theory.
Is there a God Who created the universe? (Part 2)
Continued from part 1....
Human Genes and Ape Genes
Many people often cite the fact that 98% of human and ape genes are similar. Jonathan Wells states that this therefore means that the 2% of our genes which are not similar, would have to account for the differences in our physical features. The reason why this 98% similarity is not proof of common ancestry is because the 2% difference does not include the physical feature genes. Those genes are found in the 98% similarity genes. Therefore, similarity in genes does not prove common ancestry, because in order for it to do so, the differences in our physical features would have to be accounted for in the 2% difference, but it does not. This situation can be compared to a builder who builds various structures. They will design their structures using many of the same ingredients, or parts, such as woods, concrete, steel beams, etc., but just because they use the same ingredients does not mean that the structure will come out looking exactly the same. It appears that God has done the same thing here. He has used the same genes in many different organisms, but despite this, they all look different. So again, gene similarity does not prove common ancestry because organisms can have very different physical features from each other despite the fact that the genes which account for those physcial features are similar.
No missing link, and the archaeopteryx
A large problem with Darwin's theory is the fact that we have never found any missing links. And besides, even if we did find one or two, it would not be enough to effectively argue that Darwin's theory is reality. You would need overwhelming scientific evidence and discovery to deem the theory as fact.
Some people argue that the archaeopteryx is an example of a missing link. It is an animal that existed many years ago which has characteristics from both a reptile and a bird. It cannot be considered as a missing link however for a couple of reasons. For one, in order for it to be considered a missing link, you would need to find other transitional forms which would show the gradual progression for how you went from reptile, to then archaeopteryx, to then bird. Evolution is based off of many small variations over time, and a 3 step process of reptile to archaeopteryx to bird is by no means a gradual process of small variations. The other problem with this is the fact that reptilian fossils which would serve as the best "examples" of being ancestors to birds actually appear many years after the archaeopteryx existed, thus making it impossible for them to be ancestors. If the archaeopteryx was truly a missing link, then the reptilian ancestors would have to come before it, but the opposite is true, the reptiles which would best be argued as being reptilian ancestors of the archaeopteryx come many years after, thus disproving the argument. These fossils would need to have come prior to the existence of the archaeopteryx. In order to even attempt to argue that the archaeopteryx is an example of a missing link, the fossil record would have to be the opposite of what it actually is. The archaeopteryx has not provided the missing link that scientists continue to search for.
Human Genes and Ape Genes
Many people often cite the fact that 98% of human and ape genes are similar. Jonathan Wells states that this therefore means that the 2% of our genes which are not similar, would have to account for the differences in our physical features. The reason why this 98% similarity is not proof of common ancestry is because the 2% difference does not include the physical feature genes. Those genes are found in the 98% similarity genes. Therefore, similarity in genes does not prove common ancestry, because in order for it to do so, the differences in our physical features would have to be accounted for in the 2% difference, but it does not. This situation can be compared to a builder who builds various structures. They will design their structures using many of the same ingredients, or parts, such as woods, concrete, steel beams, etc., but just because they use the same ingredients does not mean that the structure will come out looking exactly the same. It appears that God has done the same thing here. He has used the same genes in many different organisms, but despite this, they all look different. So again, gene similarity does not prove common ancestry because organisms can have very different physical features from each other despite the fact that the genes which account for those physcial features are similar.
No missing link, and the archaeopteryx
A large problem with Darwin's theory is the fact that we have never found any missing links. And besides, even if we did find one or two, it would not be enough to effectively argue that Darwin's theory is reality. You would need overwhelming scientific evidence and discovery to deem the theory as fact.
Some people argue that the archaeopteryx is an example of a missing link. It is an animal that existed many years ago which has characteristics from both a reptile and a bird. It cannot be considered as a missing link however for a couple of reasons. For one, in order for it to be considered a missing link, you would need to find other transitional forms which would show the gradual progression for how you went from reptile, to then archaeopteryx, to then bird. Evolution is based off of many small variations over time, and a 3 step process of reptile to archaeopteryx to bird is by no means a gradual process of small variations. The other problem with this is the fact that reptilian fossils which would serve as the best "examples" of being ancestors to birds actually appear many years after the archaeopteryx existed, thus making it impossible for them to be ancestors. If the archaeopteryx was truly a missing link, then the reptilian ancestors would have to come before it, but the opposite is true, the reptiles which would best be argued as being reptilian ancestors of the archaeopteryx come many years after, thus disproving the argument. These fossils would need to have come prior to the existence of the archaeopteryx. In order to even attempt to argue that the archaeopteryx is an example of a missing link, the fossil record would have to be the opposite of what it actually is. The archaeopteryx has not provided the missing link that scientists continue to search for.
Fine Tuning of the Universe
From Chapter 4: "Where Science Meets Faith" (Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel)
The fine tuning of the universe is incredible. One example is the fine expansion rate of the universe. If it were to slow down, or speed up, by even the most minuscule amount, we would not have a universe that could support life.
Scientist Stephen C. Meyer put it this way when discussing the argument for a Creator: "It is not an argument from ignorance. We are not inferring design just because the naturalistic evolutionary theories all fail to explain information. We infer design because all of those theories fail and we know of another causal entity that is capable of producing information - namely, intelligence. Personally I find this to be a very strong argument indeed".
We see design all throughout our world through the things that we as humans have created. The concept of design being necessary for the establishment of anything complex is very real. So I believe what Meyer is saying in the quote above to be an extremely strong point. As well, it should also be noted that in this chapter of "Case for a Creator", atheist Richard Dawkins is quoted as admitting that DNA follows patterns much like that of a computer program. In other words it follows a pattern of something which was designed. One may argue back saying that computers were created by following a pattern that we found in nature, but this does not change the fact that design follows certain patterns and those patterns are ones which we see all throughout our universe. This is a fact which cannot be ignored and serves to enhance Meyer's point in the quote above.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)