FOSSIL TUMORS ARE PROBLEMS FOR THEISTIC EVOLUTION
Genesis 1:25
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
There are many Christians, who choose to believe that God created the world as it is today by guiding a natural process of evolution. Such Christians accept all the teaching of evolutionary biologists, but part company where such evolutionists deny the existence of God. I have often been told “God could have produced this world by evolution, if He wanted to.” What God could have done, however, is not the most important issue. The most important issue is what God Himself said about how He created things.
A recent research article has been published, as a study of an extinct species called gorgonopsians. One fossilized specimen – alleged by evolutionists to be 255 million years old – featured a tumor on the jawbone. This animal had been suffering from cancer.
Theistic evolutionists want to believe that the creation week is simply symbolic in some way of the millions of years of evolution. Yet God saw everything that He had made, and said that it was good. How could this poor extinct gorgonopsian have been said to have a good life, prior to Adam’s sin, if it was suffering from cancer? In a creationist worldview, we see that fossils were produced later – around the time of the Flood, and therefore the reason for such a painful disease being in the world – Adam’s sin – is so much more understandable.
Thank You, Father, that when You created this world, You created it perfect in every way, with no death or sin. Amen.
Genesis 1:25
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
There are many Christians, who choose to believe that God created the world as it is today by guiding a natural process of evolution. Such Christians accept all the teaching of evolutionary biologists, but part company where such evolutionists deny the existence of God. I have often been told “God could have produced this world by evolution, if He wanted to.” What God could have done, however, is not the most important issue. The most important issue is what God Himself said about how He created things.
A recent research article has been published, as a study of an extinct species called gorgonopsians. One fossilized specimen – alleged by evolutionists to be 255 million years old – featured a tumor on the jawbone. This animal had been suffering from cancer.
Theistic evolutionists want to believe that the creation week is simply symbolic in some way of the millions of years of evolution. Yet God saw everything that He had made, and said that it was good. How could this poor extinct gorgonopsian have been said to have a good life, prior to Adam’s sin, if it was suffering from cancer? In a creationist worldview, we see that fossils were produced later – around the time of the Flood, and therefore the reason for such a painful disease being in the world – Adam’s sin – is so much more understandable.
Thank You, Father, that when You created this world, You created it perfect in every way, with no death or sin. Amen.
DINOSAUR TAIL FEATHER IN AMBER?
Matthew 6:26
Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
Evolutionary scientists have recently claimed strong evidence to support the evolution of birds from dinosaurs. Palaeontologist Lida Xing was visiting a market in Myanmar, when he saw a piece of amber, containing a tiny feather, along with the more usual insects. He claimed that the feather had to belong to a dinosaur, rather than a bird, because the vertebrae present in the specimen were all separate. This, he claimed, contrasted with the tail of archaeopteryx, the tip of whose tail has vertebrae which are fused at the terminus. Archaeopteryx is widely accepted to be a bird, although the article on Wikipedia classifies it as a feathered dinosaur.
Creation scientist Dr David Menton has shown that the feather could not have belonged to a dinosaur. Therapod dinosaurs would have been bipedal, and their long tails balance their bodies as they walk, like other bipeds, from their hips. But birds do not walk from their hips. Their femurs and knees are within their body walls. The part of the bird’s leg, often assumed to be a “wrong-facing” knee, is, in fact, equivalent to the ankle in other vertebrates. The amber feathered tail shows that it would have had insufficient weight to provide balance for a bipedal dinosaur. It is much more likely, therefore, that the feathered tail belonged to a bird.
Evolutionists have an a priori commitment to finding feathered dinosaurs, as evidence of evolution. Once again, it is seen that they have jumped the gun, if not the shark, in their enthusiasm.
Help us, Lord, to consider again the works of Your creation, and give You the praise and the glory. Amen.
Matthew 6:26
Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
Evolutionary scientists have recently claimed strong evidence to support the evolution of birds from dinosaurs. Palaeontologist Lida Xing was visiting a market in Myanmar, when he saw a piece of amber, containing a tiny feather, along with the more usual insects. He claimed that the feather had to belong to a dinosaur, rather than a bird, because the vertebrae present in the specimen were all separate. This, he claimed, contrasted with the tail of archaeopteryx, the tip of whose tail has vertebrae which are fused at the terminus. Archaeopteryx is widely accepted to be a bird, although the article on Wikipedia classifies it as a feathered dinosaur.
Creation scientist Dr David Menton has shown that the feather could not have belonged to a dinosaur. Therapod dinosaurs would have been bipedal, and their long tails balance their bodies as they walk, like other bipeds, from their hips. But birds do not walk from their hips. Their femurs and knees are within their body walls. The part of the bird’s leg, often assumed to be a “wrong-facing” knee, is, in fact, equivalent to the ankle in other vertebrates. The amber feathered tail shows that it would have had insufficient weight to provide balance for a bipedal dinosaur. It is much more likely, therefore, that the feathered tail belonged to a bird.
Evolutionists have an a priori commitment to finding feathered dinosaurs, as evidence of evolution. Once again, it is seen that they have jumped the gun, if not the shark, in their enthusiasm.
Help us, Lord, to consider again the works of Your creation, and give You the praise and the glory. Amen.
HOW OLD DOES THE EARTH LOOK?
Isaiah 46:9b-10a
I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done…
I have often been asked this question. “If the Earth is only 6,000 years, why does it look as if it is millions of years old?” Other people have suggested that the Earth could look as if it is millions of years old, because God could have chosen to make it look old. However, I am going to suggest a different answer to this question.
To do so, I need you to think about the nature of questions. The question “why does the Earth look as if it is millions of years old” contains a false assumption. The assumption is that it does indeed look millions of years old. But how old does something look, if it is millions of years old? Since the Bible tells us that the Earth is only thousands of years old, there are no million-year-old objects against which to measure such an appearance. Therefore, well-meaning creationists, who suggest that God has incorporated an appearance of age in creation, have conceded the very point that is at issue.
Of course, the Earth does indeed look very old. It looks about 6,000 years old, and it cannot look older, because there has been no time for it to appear older. It is important to interpret our observations from the facts of our biblical presupposition, not the other way around.
We praise You, O God, and declare that there is none like You, the Ancient of Days. Amen.
Isaiah 46:9b-10a
I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done…
I have often been asked this question. “If the Earth is only 6,000 years, why does it look as if it is millions of years old?” Other people have suggested that the Earth could look as if it is millions of years old, because God could have chosen to make it look old. However, I am going to suggest a different answer to this question.
To do so, I need you to think about the nature of questions. The question “why does the Earth look as if it is millions of years old” contains a false assumption. The assumption is that it does indeed look millions of years old. But how old does something look, if it is millions of years old? Since the Bible tells us that the Earth is only thousands of years old, there are no million-year-old objects against which to measure such an appearance. Therefore, well-meaning creationists, who suggest that God has incorporated an appearance of age in creation, have conceded the very point that is at issue.
Of course, the Earth does indeed look very old. It looks about 6,000 years old, and it cannot look older, because there has been no time for it to appear older. It is important to interpret our observations from the facts of our biblical presupposition, not the other way around.
We praise You, O God, and declare that there is none like You, the Ancient of Days. Amen.
THREE IN ONE IN GENESIS
Colossians 1:16
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they bethrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
One of the most fundamental doctrines about the nature of God is the doctrine of the Trinity. This primary doctrine states that there is only one Being called God. At the same time, we find in the Bible that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all described as God, and as Persons in their own right. Therefore, God is One Being, yet Three Persons.
This doctrine is derived in the New Testament, yet reflected in the Old Testament, in passages, such as Isaiah 48:16. One of the Old Testament passages, best explained by the Trinity, is the very first verse of the Bible. In Genesis 1:1, the Hebrew word for God is Elohim, and this word is a plural, which must imply at least 3. Yet the verb “created”, which follows (bara) is in the singular form, as if its preceding subject were singular, rather than triply plural.
We would not derive the doctrine of the Trinity from Genesis 1:1 alone. However, having previously seen the importance and truth of this doctrine elsewhere, it makes sense to understand the strange grammar of the Bible’s first verse, by presupposing the Trinity.
Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now, and shall be forever, Amen.
Colossians 1:16
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they bethrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
One of the most fundamental doctrines about the nature of God is the doctrine of the Trinity. This primary doctrine states that there is only one Being called God. At the same time, we find in the Bible that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all described as God, and as Persons in their own right. Therefore, God is One Being, yet Three Persons.
This doctrine is derived in the New Testament, yet reflected in the Old Testament, in passages, such as Isaiah 48:16. One of the Old Testament passages, best explained by the Trinity, is the very first verse of the Bible. In Genesis 1:1, the Hebrew word for God is Elohim, and this word is a plural, which must imply at least 3. Yet the verb “created”, which follows (bara) is in the singular form, as if its preceding subject were singular, rather than triply plural.
We would not derive the doctrine of the Trinity from Genesis 1:1 alone. However, having previously seen the importance and truth of this doctrine elsewhere, it makes sense to understand the strange grammar of the Bible’s first verse, by presupposing the Trinity.
Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now, and shall be forever, Amen.
GOD’S RAINBOW
Genesis 9:13
I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.
Rainbows are beautiful. But why do they happen?
Isaac Newton showed in his famous experiment that white light is a mixture of colors, which can be separated by refraction, or bending, using a prism. Light is similarly refracted by droplets of rainwater in the atmosphere, when the sunlight shines on them. The large bow-shaped spectrum of colors thus produced is what we see as a rainbow.
Yet there is a deeper reason for the existence of the rainbow. God has given it as a “sign of the covenant”. The rainbow is not the covenant – it is the sign of that covenant. God has promised to all humanity, that the seasons will continue, as long as the Earth does, and that He will never again send a Flood to deluge the whole world. God would be within His rights to send another Flood, but He does not do so, because of His mercy.
Other groups of people have wanted to commandeer the use of the rainbow, as a symbol for their own ideas, cultures and behaviors. Yet the Bible is clear what the appearance of the rainbow is meant to signify for us. God has given a clear message of mercy and hope, through the appearance of this remarkable and beautiful phenomenon.
Thank You, Lord God, for Your rainbow in the clouds. And thank You that it speaks to us of Your love and mercy. Amen.
Genesis 9:13
I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.
Rainbows are beautiful. But why do they happen?
Isaac Newton showed in his famous experiment that white light is a mixture of colors, which can be separated by refraction, or bending, using a prism. Light is similarly refracted by droplets of rainwater in the atmosphere, when the sunlight shines on them. The large bow-shaped spectrum of colors thus produced is what we see as a rainbow.
Yet there is a deeper reason for the existence of the rainbow. God has given it as a “sign of the covenant”. The rainbow is not the covenant – it is the sign of that covenant. God has promised to all humanity, that the seasons will continue, as long as the Earth does, and that He will never again send a Flood to deluge the whole world. God would be within His rights to send another Flood, but He does not do so, because of His mercy.
Other groups of people have wanted to commandeer the use of the rainbow, as a symbol for their own ideas, cultures and behaviors. Yet the Bible is clear what the appearance of the rainbow is meant to signify for us. God has given a clear message of mercy and hope, through the appearance of this remarkable and beautiful phenomenon.
Thank You, Lord God, for Your rainbow in the clouds. And thank You that it speaks to us of Your love and mercy. Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.