"The prophets prophesy lies, the priests rule by their own authority, and my people love it this way. But what will you do in the end?" Jeremiah 5:31
We wouldn't need courts and prisons, if people treated each other right.
We wouldn't have relationship issues and breakdowns within families if people cared about others as much as they care about themselves.
We wouldn't have bad people in government positions, if there were no bad people.
God has spoken to us about the reality of our condition, but few are willing to turn from sin.
One reason might be because it is very, very hard to go to someone and acknowledge our guilt. If it's something we didn't realize we did wrong at the time, it is much easier to say sorry, I didn't mean it. But what about the times we do mean it? It's really hard to tell someone I was a real jerk to you and I really meant it.
To recognize that we have wronged God, even resisted His efforts to show us truth, lived our lives contrary to His character, and even blamed Him for our wrongs, can seem really scary, because it makes us vulnerable to One who judge us fairly and righteously...and we don't measure up.
In human relationships there is a sort of indebtedness that happens if you really do wrong someone and then make it right with that person. You kind of feel obligated to be kinder, more considerate. The reason I'm thinking about this is that I recently said some pointed things to a friend who had asked my opinion about some decisions that had been bothering me already, and I spoke what was true, but didn't do it with gentleness and that caused some hurt feelings. I was out of line. I can't undo the hurt. I said I was sorry immediately, and have been extra nice since, but the memory will never be erased. I can try to be much more careful not to speak like that in the future, and that's about all I can do.
With God, we have the assurance that our sins have been dealt with and He will remember them no more, as far as judging us goes. He does, however, discipline His own to bring them back when they stray, but that is different than punishment. Sin was punished at the cross, when Jesus fully bore the wrath of God against sin and makes forgiveness available through faith in Jesus to whoever will trust, believe, repent and receive Him.
Do I feel vulnerable before a Holy, righteous and All-Powerful God? Yes. But rather than fearing, I have the assurance that Jesus gives--that all has been made right between us--and that leads me to feeling indebted to God with an everlasting debt of love.
"Therefore I tell you, because her many sins have been forgiven, she has loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves little.” Luke 7:47 BSB
"He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. 'By His stripes you are healed.' " 1 Peter 2:24 BSB
We wouldn't need courts and prisons, if people treated each other right.
We wouldn't have relationship issues and breakdowns within families if people cared about others as much as they care about themselves.
We wouldn't have bad people in government positions, if there were no bad people.
God has spoken to us about the reality of our condition, but few are willing to turn from sin.
One reason might be because it is very, very hard to go to someone and acknowledge our guilt. If it's something we didn't realize we did wrong at the time, it is much easier to say sorry, I didn't mean it. But what about the times we do mean it? It's really hard to tell someone I was a real jerk to you and I really meant it.
To recognize that we have wronged God, even resisted His efforts to show us truth, lived our lives contrary to His character, and even blamed Him for our wrongs, can seem really scary, because it makes us vulnerable to One who judge us fairly and righteously...and we don't measure up.
In human relationships there is a sort of indebtedness that happens if you really do wrong someone and then make it right with that person. You kind of feel obligated to be kinder, more considerate. The reason I'm thinking about this is that I recently said some pointed things to a friend who had asked my opinion about some decisions that had been bothering me already, and I spoke what was true, but didn't do it with gentleness and that caused some hurt feelings. I was out of line. I can't undo the hurt. I said I was sorry immediately, and have been extra nice since, but the memory will never be erased. I can try to be much more careful not to speak like that in the future, and that's about all I can do.
With God, we have the assurance that our sins have been dealt with and He will remember them no more, as far as judging us goes. He does, however, discipline His own to bring them back when they stray, but that is different than punishment. Sin was punished at the cross, when Jesus fully bore the wrath of God against sin and makes forgiveness available through faith in Jesus to whoever will trust, believe, repent and receive Him.
Do I feel vulnerable before a Holy, righteous and All-Powerful God? Yes. But rather than fearing, I have the assurance that Jesus gives--that all has been made right between us--and that leads me to feeling indebted to God with an everlasting debt of love.
"Therefore I tell you, because her many sins have been forgiven, she has loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves little.” Luke 7:47 BSB
"He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. 'By His stripes you are healed.' " 1 Peter 2:24 BSB
. The historical sciences. Some branches of science focus on events that happened in the distant past. Paleontology, historical geology, and cosmology are among these. These are sometimes called the historical sciences. The problems with properly evaluating historical events have already been discussed. The influence of God is unknown. Many factors leading to the outcome of an event are unknown. Added to this is the ease that “authorities” have of censoring any analysis that challenges naturalism. These entire fields have false foundations and present conclusions that are unjustified. Remember the Biblical quote starting this Part. When only one side is presented, a case can appear much stronger than it is. Evolutionists understand this and therefore mock and slander evidence challenging their dialogue. As a result of the ingrained biases present in these fields, their assertions concerning dates and times are meaningless. For instance, creation scientists associate the fossil record with the worldwide flood of Genesis 6 and not the creation-day events of Genesis 1. Since this does not fit with naturalistic explanations, the evidence supporting this is ignored and those presenting it are mocked. The strength of any evidence supporting the Genesis 6 flood is ignored. No allowance is made for the possibility that God could have intervened in any manner whatsoever. The standard of what is printed in their journals appears to be how well it conforms to the message they are trying to proclaim. Anything in opposition is censored. One can be intellectually honest while ignoring their claims. 3. Scientists do not make things, engineers do. It is also important to understand that scientists do not study how to make things. This is the domain of engineering. Engineers are required to make things that that work. They are trained how to build structures that have many different components that need to fit together properly or none of them have any value. A living cell is full of these kinds of features. By contrast, when a scientist says that time and random changes are adequate to create life and new species, he is only making speculative statements. Worse than that, the speculation comes at the expensive of what engineers have learned. Engineers find that almost everything built requires a certain minimum number of components that need to appear in finished form and assembled before they meet their purpose. However, this contradicts the slow, gradual steps required for evolutionary processes to provide new features, so biologists simply ignore the issue. This issue should not be glossed over: Engineers have learned procedures that must be satisfied to provide new, complex structures. Ignoring them results in failure. Natural processes are not exempt from these requirements. However, the engineering approach requires the use of intelligence in first providing a design which defines all the parts that are needed, their relationships to each other, and how to fabricate them using available resources and tools. It then requires to ability to intervene in nature to do the fabrication. Naturalistic philosophy does not provide for the intelligence to design or the means fabricate a design. Therefore, in order to maintain their philosophical perspective, atheistic scientists ignore what engineers have learned about making new objects. Nevertheless, when scientists ignore the principles of engineering and try to test their ideas in the lab, they consistently get paradoxes and failures. Because of the millions and billions of years needed to observe Darwinian evolution, it is universally recognized that this is outside the capability of man to observe directly. Therefore, a scientist can assume the right to propose anything he wants, spin it how he wants, and use his prestige as a scientist to make it sound true. This does not make it true. 4. Philosophical statements do not represent science. Earlier, we mentioned that the attitude of many modern scientists is, “In the end, natural processes will explain everything.” This is clearly a nonscientific attitude. No scientist can point to an experiment which justifies this statement. It is merely an unproven philosophical statement. Yet, these scientists claim that if anyone disagrees with their philosophy, they are to be called fake scientists, pseudoscientists. They then assert that as we learn more through new experiments, these will support their position. However, no one knows what the results of future, yet undefined experiments will be. Notice, the contention here is not over interpretation of observed evidence. It is over hoped-for future observations by atheistic scientists against currently observed ones by creationists. The evidence against abiogenesis is solid. When a scientist asserts that a very long time ago natural processes made the original living cells and that these cells then evolved into various species, he is claiming to be an authority in history, engineering, and philosophy. He is not. He is outside his field in all three areas. Therefore, the scientific method has nothing legitimate to say about origins. He should either keep his mouth quiet or make it clear that he is not speaking as a scientist but as one promoting his personal philosophy against observed evidence when he does give his opinion. A critical observation. It is critically important to understand that science is limited in what it can tell us. For one example, it can tell us the what happens but not why it happens. If I drop a ball, it falls to the ground according to the laws of gravity. This represents valid science, because it can be studied by the scientific method. However, if I ask a scientist, “Why does gravity exist?” he does not have a legitimate answer. A scientist cannot tell us why energy, matter, and time exist, either. These issues are outside the scope of scientific investigation. We need to understand and accept the fact that many of the most interesting questions are outside the scope of science to give an answer. We also must be prepared to recognize that in today’s environment, many scientists like to ignore their limitations and make assertions beyond what is proper. A person needs to be prepared to reject what they say in such cases. From this perspective, if someone were to ask a scientist where life comes from, it appears that his proper response should be that he can study what would be required to make a cell, he can study the potential for natural processes to meet the requirements, and he can evaluate whether there is a match between the two. However, it is outside his field to make claims on what happened historically, particularly as there appears to be a big discrepancy between what is needed for a cell and what natural processes can provide. He can also say that engineering provides a good model to suggest that an intelligent being with the ability to work outside of natural processes presents a viable model for how it could have happened. Beyond this a scientist has nothing legitimate to say. Many evolutionists mock God. They claim that those who believe in God believe in a God of the gaps. I.e., when science has yet to learn something, people attribute it to God. As science learns more, there is less for them to believe. God is only useful for filling in the gaps until science can explain it. Sadly, modern science appears to present this as a foundational truth, not to be challenged. Yet, nothing could be further from actual truth. We shall discuss in this article that the more we learn from science, the more inadequately natural processes appear to be in explaining the origin of life. When we add engineering to the discussion, observations from science and engineering working together lead us straight to One who fits the definition of a personal God as the Creator of Life. 5. How unbiased science supports a Creator: Broad Issues. Science has uncovered a number of broad issues that lay a foundation to question the adequacy of natural processes to create a living cell. Here are four of them. They help lead to the understanding that God created life. Notice, whenever scientists attack the faith of Christians who believe God and the Bible, these things are never discussed: 1) Rudolph Virchow, a German scientist and medical doctor, reported in 1855 that “all cells come from cells.” In his honor, this observation is called “Virchow’s aphorism.” (An aphorism is a statement with profound meaning expressed in few words). 150 years ago, this aphorism helped establish modern cellular theory. Advances in technology since then have firmly confirmed it. The Wikipedia article on Cell Theory shows it as one of three components of modern cell theory. Observed science shows us a number of features that are essential for a group of chemicals to function as a cell and replicate. We understand what they are and why there are important. Until a group of chemicals are sufficiently organized to function as a complete living cell, they do not constitute a cell. They most certainly cannot make new cells capable of sustaining life. Scientists acknowledge that they currently have no way out of this problem.6 Virchow’s aphorism leads to a simple conclusion: a living cell must appear fully formed in a single step. Yet, scientists in general admit that it is irrational to believe that a functioning cell, complete with genetic information and operating metabolism, could appear in a single step. Their solution is to ignore Virchow’s aphorism when they discuss origin of life issues. It is not compatible with the message they want to promote, so they ignore it. Do you see a problem with this? Abiogenesis is a major branch of science. Yet, strong evidence teaching against the plausibility of successful abiogenesis is ignored, not addressed. Somehow, this does not appear to be the lack of bias that scientists try to instill in their public image. Would you like proof they ignore it? Do a Google search on Virchow’s aphorism all cells from cells. There are about 70,900 references returned. Most are relevant. Just glancing at some of the entries shows how established the aphorism is. Next, go to Google Scholar at