Genesis Contemplations I

GENESIS CONTEMPLATION I

Adam & Sin vs. Evolution & Evil
In the beginning God made the first human being, Adam. Adam is the Father of mankind/humankind (Gen. 2:7). We all come from Adam’s sperm/seed. When Adam disobeyed God’s command (Gen. 2:16-17; 3:1-11), that act was what produced sin—the missing the mark of God, the erring from God’s way, disobedience to God—and death*, and because we all come from Adam we therefore are all born into sin and death (Rom. 5:12). Thus all the evil and chaos and bad crap in life, from Adam to the last day, is due to the sin and death consequence from Adam’s act of disobedience.
     Those who don’t believe that God created everything as it states in the Genesis account reject this origin of the problem of evil and so on as insufficient or unscientific. Ok, well let’s look at the only other theory for human life in this light then, evolution. The theory of evolution says, loosely, that we as humans evolved from other things, etc, etc. If we trace the “other things” back to its first beginning, some type of unformed substance, what eventually came from this—according to natural selection—survived by killing off (or outliving) its opposition or hindrance to survive (that’s an act of self-centeredness and violence). And so on the evolutionary process goes. From this we see, even the “in the beginning” of evolution an act we now consider an evil—violence—and a problem—selfishness—is integrated in the very fabric of this process. Evolution is secular science’s equivalent to Adam as the origin of humankind, and so we can deduce the same conclusion from Adam for evolution: Because we all come from the evolutionary process we therefore are all born into the evil produced from evolution. Thus all the evil and chaos and bad crap in life, from the beginning to the end, is due to the beginning acts of the evolutionary process (self-centeredness and violence).
     We can see regardless to which view one holds, the problem of sin/evil originates at the very beginning. The difference is, and it’s a big one, every ideology (aside from one) has no, nada, none, zero, zilch of an adequate answer or solution to this problem, except death—which without a 100% certainty there is no afterlife “death” may not even be an answer/solution but a greater eternal problem. However, I can say this with all the confidence in the world, one will find the only adequate answer to this problem in Jesus Christ*, if one looks without prejudice or discrimination to the good reasons and ample evidence that is available on His behalf.

A Talking Snake?
The Bible reports a cunning serpent as the culprit behind the deception of Eve which led ultimately to Adam’s disobedience to God. People who don’t accept the Bible’s account of the beginning think it is preposterous to believe in a talking snake, though it’s easy for them to believe that we evolved from this glob thing, and then another thing, and then more things, and then finally monkeys (so it is said and widely accepted in the secular scientific community but still debated). Yet it’s preposterous to believe in a talking snake, hmm. For all we know, especially because empirical science* cannot pose absolutes only probabilities, natural selection could very well have us evolving from snakes and we can talk, hmm. Doesn’t sound so preposterous after all now does it?
     Evolution doesn’t explain away God as so many atheists suggest. In certain cases the theory of the evolutionary process actually shows plausibility for God’s existence and the trustworthiness of the Bible. For example, Genesis 3:14—written thousands of years before the theory of evolution—records, “So the LORD God said to the serpent, “On your belly you shall go…all the days of your life.”” Evolution shows this as probable for the ancestry of snakes. So whether true or not, (though I believe Darwin’s theory of evolution is false and the Creation account in Genesis to be true), evolution does not necessarily explain away God or the credibility of the Bible. People simply choose to use evolution as a scapegoat for not accepting the Covenant God’s existence, to which the Bible attests (Rom. 1:20-21).

Take away whatever you can from these two topics. I do hope this was a help in some way. It was a simple contemplation of mine as I journey again through the book of Genesis. I will post more as they come along during this journey of mine.

_________________________________________________________________

*1. There are 4 parts to the death consequence if Adam disobeyed God’s command. The first part of death is death by separation from God (Gen. 2:23-24). The second part of death is death by violence (Gen. 4:8). The third part of death is death by the natural (Gen. 5:5). The fourth part of death is death by destruction (Gen. 6:7).
*2. Jesus the Son of God and God the Son distinguishes Himself from the “Jesus” of Jehovah Witness, Mormonism, Christian Science, the Jesus Seminar, or any other beliefs spun off of the historic Jesus of Nazareth found in the Holy Bible.
*3. Science generally and largely makes empirical claims and deals with empirical issues, meaning there claims and issues can be solved by experience, either directly by observation or indirectly by experimentation. Empirical science is obviously verifiable, but an unspoken fact of empirical science is that it is also falsifiable (capable of being disproved). This is why empirical science can never deduce (assume, conclude) absolutes only strong or weak probabilities (e.g. theories, hypothesis).

2009

A Defense for the Hope: Does God Exist?

Somewhere around 6,000 years ago someone declared, from a personal encounter, there is only one true Higher Power/Supreme Being– also known as, GOD. This declaration of theirs they passed on to the generations after them and told them to do the same, and it has gone on until this present day in time.
     From this point in history on people have made it a life endeavor attempting to prove this age old claim to be false. Now some will say that this age old claim was made from an assumption taken from independent reasoning. With this said, we can now see from the studies of certain things like *Astronomy, *Cosmology, and *Biology that those centuries ago who declared God exists aren't looney; which in turn means the burden of proof is truly on those who oppose this claim to not simply show reasonable doubt but “foolproof” doubt. Yet, if one who accepts the existence of God can show even an ounce of solid, concrete evidence for it the case against it, no matter how sophisticated it may be, is no more. For who can truly prove that something doesn’t exist if there is even one shred of solid evidence that says it does?
     Here are three things I believe is solid and simple evidence for the existence of God.

The Universe
Scientists say, by way of their “Big Bang Theory”, that the universe has always existed, originating in a coalition of energy: gravity, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear. Well, using their theory, energy––an effect and also a cause, but in this case an effect because of its four manifestations––cannot exist (come to be, occur) without the direct result of some other “cause” (action). In order for this such “cause” (i.e. action by somebody or something else) to create/cause this such “effect” (i.e. energy [and eventually matter] that makes up this immeasurable universe), this such “cause” would have to be something absolute––the origin/starting point of all “CAUSE”, something that always was, is, and will be. Otherwise, this universe remains an effect (a state) of energy (and eventually matter) without a sufficient “cause” (action by some “thing” completely separate from the “effect”), and that’s scientifically impossible. In all of the efforts to explain the “Big Bang” (the origin of the universe aside from a Higher Power), it still doesn’t and will never be able account for how the “Big” was provided for the “Bang” to take place.

The Earth
Earth is too perfectly placed within this galaxy. Any closer to the sun it would be too hot for life and any further away it be too cold for life, and it’s not blocked by the Asteroid Belt having a perfect view to view the rest of the universe. It's too perfectly suited for the different kinds of life forms on it to be an accident, chance, or luck. The percentage of that happening is in the billions times billionth percentile. Again, this is far too scientifically improbable to explain with certainty without some Higher/Supreme Power causing it.

Humankind
Evolution? Scientists from the same field aren’t all on the same page with evolution. (Scientists from the same field aren’t all on the same page on a lot of things, but that’s for another discussion). Scientists can only tell us educated guesses (empirical claims) not precise, absolute facts. They theorize from pictures of space, equations, certain species, and so forth of how life on earth came to be. (The same is to be said for their explanation for the universe and earth as well). For example, stories and reenactments from ages ago where we do not have anything credible or tangible to support them are fictitious and speculative not absolute or necessarily true. So the stories and reenactments we read and watch about dinosaurs, life ten’s of thousands to millions and billions of years ago, and so on, have no such support for how they are being told or described. Thus they are speculative not definite. They cannot tell us from a first person position only a third person position, and a third person position is not solid enough to be accepted as first-hand facts (in this case); which is exactly why they’re still called theories and not absolutes. Therefore, there is no “fail-safe” scientific way to explain the existence of humankind except for a Higher/Supreme Power; that is, atleast starting the process of “evolving” or something of the sorts. Again, humankind is such an “effect”, like that of the universe or the position of earth within the galaxy, that it needs such a “cause”.


Conclusion
I read somewhere, “People claim to not believe in God because it is “not scientific” or “because there is no proof.”” Yet, we can see that not believing in a Higher Power is actually what is “not scientific”. These three alone give ample enough evidence that there is a God out there who atleast is the cause for the universe, the positioning of and the situating of life on earth, and then humankind; as well as reasonable doubt on the allegation that there is no existence of God. It’s after acknowledging the existence of a Higher Power that we have to ask the question of, does this Higher Power want something to do with us, or did it start it all and leaves it to it’s own devices? This is where I believe some of the different faiths/beliefs come from, trying to answer this question. Nonetheless, the reality of the existence of God is much more credible than that of those who adamantly disagree. Even well-known, non-Christian scientists agree. Renowned astrophysicist and evolutionist Stephen Hawking said,

“The universe and the laws of physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any one of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could not exist: Either atoms would not be stable, or they wouldn’t combine into molecules, or the stars wouldn’t form the heavier elements, or the universe would collapse before life could develop and so on.”*

And again he said,

“It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.”*

Even Charles Darwin himself said,

“The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God … I am aware that if we admit a first cause, the mind still craves to know whence it came, and how it arose.”*

There’s an old saying I like to close with, “A fool says in his heart, there is no God.”* And that’s because you’d have to be a fool to not see the evidence of the existence of a Higher/Supreme Power, or dim-witted enough to cover ones eyes and say, “I don’t see anything.”


Here's a link to another site that shares a lot of information on this same topic:
http://www.bcrevolution.ca/collapse_of_evolution.htm
_________________________________________________________________

*1 - Astronomy is the scientific study of the universe, especially of the motions, positions, sizes, composition, and behavior of celestial objects.
*2 - Cosmology is the scientific study of the origin and structure of the universe.
*3 - Biology is the science that deals with all forms of life, including their classification, physiology, chemistry, and interactions.
*4, 5, 6 - One Heartbeat Away, Mark Cahill. Retrieved from http://audio.markcahill.org/Heartbeat.pdf, pg. 22, 24, 25.
*7 - Psalms 53:1

2009

Should We Be Afraid of Dinosaurs?

Why do people insist on questioning the authenticity of the Bible regarding dinosaurs? There is no reference in the Bible for the term universe, or space, or cosmos, but rather you know of it as heaven(s), or firmament, or sky. Yet, no one questions the reality of space in the Bible. Can it be that dinosaurs fall to the same thing as the term universe, space, and cosmos? Rather than the term dinosaurs being stated in the Bible, you may know of them as beast, or dragons, or leviathan, or any of the other "every living creatures" God created that we don't recognize by name. If the Bible says God created every living creature both of the water and earth, and we have the bones of dinosaurs, then that would mean they fall under the "every living creature" God created, right? This is not rocket science. Just as God doesn't give us the details about space––the many galaxies, planets, stars, etc––in the Bible, He also chose not to give us details about certain creatures in the Bible as well––dinosaurs are among many other creatures we don’t hear about in the Bible, but we see they exist or existed. Does that mean we should question the Bible because of their existence as well? This is an inadequate and foolish effort to refute the validity of the Bible. The Bible is not an encyclopedia, it wasn't meant to tell us everything, but just what God wanted us to know (Deut. 29:29).

"And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof." (Gen. 2:19)

"The beast of the field shall honour me, the dragons and the owls: because I give waters in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert, to give drink to my people, my chosen." (Isa. 43:20)

The Bible says, "God created… great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly… and every winged fowl…" (Gen. 1:21) "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth…" (Gen. 1:24) "…wild beasts of the desert… and owls… and satyrs [could be butterflies]…" (Isa. 13:21) "…leviathan that crooked serpent… the dragon that is in the sea." (Isa. 27:1) "…dragons in the waters" (Ps. 74:13) "…the dragons of the wilderness" (Mal. 1:3) "…small and great beasts" (Ps. 104:25).

Other creatures mentioned in the Bible: Lions, wild asses (donkeys), bears, eagles, quails, serpent …and there are probably more than these cited above, but not every creature in the world is referred to in the Bible. Remember, we serve a sovereign God who knew beforehand what the world would be like with dinosaurs around. Thus, by them obviously not being here, He chose to let them become extinct for His perfect reasons. And just like space, rather than tell us all about it, He allows us to find and figure it out ourselves to stand in awe of His creative power! So for us as believers, dinosaurs (like space) should help to prove the existence of God, not disapprove Him; and they should help to display the individuality, power, and glory of God, not discredit or denounce Him.


Here are some notes taken from AnswersInGenesis.com about dinosaurs:
*Dinosaur means ‘terrible lizard’.
*Dinosaurs had posture that was fully erect, similar to that in mammals; unlike reptiles.
*Evidence of these ‘transitional forms,’ as they are called, should be abundant. However, many fossil experts admit that not one unquestionable transitional form between any group of creatures and another has been found anywhere. If dinosaurs evolved from amphibians, there should be, for example, fossil evidence of animals that are part dinosaur and part something else. However, there is no proof of this anywhere. In fact, if you go into any museum you will see fossils of dinosaurs that are 100% dinosaur, not something in between. There are no 25%, 50%, 75%, or even 99% dinosaurs—they are all 100% dinosaur!
*If God designed and created dinosaurs, they would have been fully functional, designed to do what they were created for, and would have been 100% dinosaur. This fits exactly with the evidence from the fossil record.
*Creation scientists believe that dinosaurs were called dragons before the word dinosaur was invented in the 1800s. We would not expect to find the word dinosaur in Bibles like the Authorized Version (1611), as it was translated well before the word dinosaur was ever used.

2007