BE FREED FROM LIES!
As one talks with people, one notices that they have two ways of
reacting to spiritual issues. Some are open to them, but very often it seems
like you are faced with an impenetrable wall, and the message does not evoke a
response. The attitude of people like that can be so unresponsive that they do not
even want to think over other alternatives and that just their beliefs would be
wrong. They have decided beforehand how the things are, and that cannot be
shaken by any proofs. It will not succeed because they are not interested in
different material, logical proofs or explanations that could prove their
beliefs wrong. They reject them straightaway without that they become
acquainted with them, think over reliability of them and reliability of their
own beliefs. They are similar to the Ephesians mentioned in the Acts or similar
to Paul’s fellow citizens who rejected the message he preached and did not want
to inquire about things. “The wall” was so big and impenetrable in the minds of
these people that they did not even want to think over was the message true.
-
(Acts 19:28, 29) When they heard this, they were furious and began
shouting: “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!”
29.
Soon the whole city was in an uproar. The people seized Gaius and Aristarchus,
Paul’s travelling companions from Macedonia, and rushed as one man into the
theatre.
- (Acts 22:17,18) “When I
returned to Jerusalem and was praying at the temple, I fell into a trance
18. and saw the Lord
speaking. ‘Quick!’ he said to me. ‘Leave Jerusalem immediately, because
they will not accept your testimony about me.’
But is it in many beliefs of people only a question of lies and
preconceptions or what are they? That will we examine in the light of two
matters:
1. ”I love you”
2. The origin of all
1. ”I LOVE YOU”
As one talks with people about spiritual things, one so notices often
that there is an impenetrable wall ahead, and the message does not evoke a
response. They have decided beforehand how the things are, and do not even want
to think over other alternatives. It will not succeed because they are not
interested in different material or proofs. They reject them straightaway
because of the theory of evolution or other beliefs.
One reason why people reject
the Gospel is their idea of what is love and what is not. Many may be offended
either by the attitudes of some people or by the fact that someone speaks to
them about sinfulness of some issue. They say right away: “Do not judge” and
“We must not be narrow-minded”. These attitudes cause them to reject the whole
message of the Gospel.
What is right and wrong? As it is thought over love and tolerance, most
do not take out in the same context a question about that what is right and
wrong. They do not express this question for example concerning sexual
relations, homosexual way of life and abortion, but they pay only attention to
different outlooks that others have. Their attention is in them, but not at all
in this question.
However, the question about
right and wrong is quite essential. For example abortion many do not regard as
any big matter and wrong, but in fact in it happens the homicide of a little
child (You shall not kill!), even though
people claimed else. Is it right? Guilt that many experience after an abortion,
refers at least to that most have an idea about the matter and that they have
done wrong.
What about if someone takes up
a negative attitude towards abortion? Is he narrow-minded? No, but he acts
according to that what he realizes to be right and wants to follow it. Rather
it could be said that the advocates of abortion and who want to kill little
children are narrow-minded. They are more narrow-minded at least in this area.
What is the truth? Another question that is not presented very often, is
the question of that what is the truth and are our acts significant. It appears
hardly ever in worldly media.
However, this question is
quite essential. For if the message of the Bible and especially of the New
Testament is true, it shows us that fornicators, adulterers, murders,
homosexuals and generally unrepentant will not inherit the kingdom of God (Of
course the Bible speaks about forgiveness for the same groups and all people,
but we must first know that we have sinned and to confess them so that we can
be forgiven. Also in the Lord’s Prayer is said: “forgive us our sins”. If a man does not even
admit that he has sinned, how can he be forgiven?). The same matter
appears repeatedly in several verses and therefore it is good for us to think
over, are they the truth and true or false, because they have to belong to one
or the other group. If there is a possibility, for example, only of ten
percents that they are the truth, don’t we then act stupidly if we reject them?
- (1 Cor 6:9,10) Know you not that
the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor
adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor
revilers, nor extortionists, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
- (Rev 22:14,15) Blessed are they that do
his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter
in through the gates into the city.
15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers,
and fornicators, and murderers, and idolaters, and whoever loves and makes a
lie.
”I love you”. Nowadays it is so ordinary that it is emphasized love
and tolerance in media and there is nothing wrong in it as such, but it is a
good thing.
However, it is wrong to emphasize
that God would give His acceptance to sin and evilness because it is not at all
like that. For if we look at the previous verses and they are true, so
according to them the wrongdoers and generally unrepentant persons will not get
to heaven but they will have to go to damnation. It appears also in the next
verses:
- (Rev 21:5-8) And he that sat on the
throne said, Behold, I make all things new.
And he said to me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
6 And he said to
me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will
give to him that is thirsty of the fountain of the water of life freely.
7 He that
overcomes shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my
son.
8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the
abominable, and murderers, and fornicators, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and
all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and
brimstone: which is the second death.
What about, if someone warns people about damnation
and repentance that leads there? What about, if he warns persons who live in
fornication or homosexuality? Is he uncharitable and narrow-minded then?
The
answer to the previous is that just him has love towards people and he is
practical in his love (It is good to note that Jesus spoke about damnation
more than anybody else and warned about it, but in spite of all He has
certainly been the most loving man on the earth).
The
situation could be compared to that if the weak ices (compare; damnation) exist
and two persons meet a person who goes on them. We can ask which of the
following ways is more loving and practical. Isn’t the latter way absolutely
better?
-
Another person hugs the person that goes on the weak ices but does not speak
anything about the danger, but says: “I love you”.
-
Another person says to the person that goes on the weak ices: I’m worried
about you. Do not go on the weak ices, because you can be drowned. It can
happen badly to you.”
The description of Jesus about the merciful Samaritan
indicates well what is the love of practice. That was not showed at all by the
priest and the Levite who were indifferent to the destiny of their neighbour,
but the Samaritan who tried to help his neighbour. The similar love we also
need and not only indifference about the destinies of people. Nowadays
tolerance that can be emphasized
in our society, can actually be just similar indifference that was represented
by
the priest and the Levite:
- (Luke 10:29-37) But he, willing
to justify himself, said to Jesus, And who is my neighbor?
30 And Jesus
answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell
among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and
departed, leaving him half dead.
31 And by chance
there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on
the other side.
32 And likewise a
Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the
other side.
33 But a certain
Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had
compassion on him,
34 And went to
him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own
beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
35 And on the
morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and
said to him, Take care of him; and whatever you spend more, when I come again,
I will repay you.
36 Which now of
these three, think you, was neighbor to him that fell among the thieves?
37 And he said, He that showed mercy on him.
Then said Jesus to him, Go, and do you likewise.
Are you
narrow-minded yourself? As we continue about the same subject or prejudices
and –attitudes, it is good to state again that everyone is under them to some extent.
It is a mistake to think that anyone of us would be totally free from them.
Often it can happen that those who preach most against intolerance and
prejudices, are under them most (compare Rom 2:1-3: Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are
that judge: for wherein you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you
that judge do the same things.
But we are sure that the judgment of God is according
to truth against them which commit such things.
And think you this, O man, that judge them
which do such things, and do the same, that you shall escape the judgment of
God?). They have not yet taken the beam out of their own eye, but only the mote
out of their brother’s eye as Jesus said (Matt 7:3-5: And
why behold you the mote that is in your brother’s eye, but consider not the
beam that is in your own eye? Or how will you say to your brother, Let me pull
out the mote out of your eye; and, behold, a beam is in your own eye? You
hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of your own eye; and then shall you see
clearly to cast out the mote out of your brother’s eye.)
Secondly these people do not understand that we shall give account only of our
own narrow-mindedness and wrong attitudes, not of others. If we seek faults
from the life of others, but do not pay any attention to our own faults, it is
fully against the teaching of the Bible and the New Testament.
The next citation indicates well what is it
all about. A person can criticize different opinions of others and
narrow-mindedness, but does not notice it at all in his own life:
Once,
as I was giving a lecture a person said to me with anger: “This is not right.
You demand that we would take The Genesis literally; that God created in six
days, that the evolution is not true, and that there has really been the
world-wide Flood. You are intolerant towards the outlooks of other people. You
must tolerate other people, like me, who believe that God used evolution, and
that the Genesis is only symbolic.”
I asked him: Well, what would you want me
to do?”
He answered: “You must allow other outlooks
and tolerate opinions that are different from your owns.
I said: “Well, my understanding is that the
literal interpretation of the Genesis is the right outlook. All other kinds of
the outlooks about the Genesis are wrong. Do you tolerate my opinion?”
He looked at me as shocked and hesitated in
his mind. I could almost hear his thoughts: “If I say yes, I will give him a
permission to say that I must not have a different opinion than he has. If I
say no, I’m clearly intolerant. What shall I do? He looked at me and said:
“That is semantics!” In fact he meant that he had lost his justifications and
did not want to admit to be intolerant towards my opinion. In fact, he had so
chosen a definite standpoint.
Occasionally people are shocked when it is
spoken about matters absolutely surely. They say: You cannot be so inflexible.”
This utterance is actually inflexible. Many people think that some people
are inflexible (dogmatic) and others not. However, it is not a question of that
you are inflexible or not, but what doctrine (dogma) is the best doctrine that
is worth while to adopt! (1)
Modern or
conservative? An opinion and a prejudice that often appears is a
question of what is modern and conservative. Willingly in papers is taken out
grouping to these two groups, thinking that they are modern who regard for
example homosexuality as a good matter, whereas the others who think in a
different way are conservative.
The viewpoint of the Bible is however quite
other. According to it we act modernly and wisely only then as we turn from our
sins, old ways of life and want new life from God. He wants to give us new
birth (John 3:3) and a new eternal life for a gift. In fact the whole core of
the New Testament is just there that God calls us to His eternal kingdom and
that the way to there has been opened by Jesus Christ. This new life He offers
to everyone who turns to Him. We look at some verses concerning the matter:
New life
-
(1 Peter 1:3) Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy has begotten us again
to a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
New kingdom
-
(2 Peter 3:13) Nevertheless we, according to his promise,
look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein
dwells righteousness.
- (Rev 21:1-6) And I saw a new
heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed
away; and there was no more sea.
2 And I John saw
the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a
bride adorned for her husband.
3 And I heard a
great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men,
and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself
shall be with them, and be their God.
4 And God shall
wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death,
neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the
former things are passed away.
5 And he
that sat on the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said to me, Write: for these words
are true and faithful.
6 And he said to me, It is done. I am Alpha and
Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to him that is thirsty of the
fountain of the water of life freely.
2.
THE ORIGIN OF ALL
Concerning the thought that God has created
everything, it is good to understand that believing in it is based on the
outlook on life, in which the origin of life and everything is God. It is based
on that God is believed to have created the universe, the earth and life in a
short time and that it is not a question of mere chance, but everything has
originally been born by Him. At least this teaching appears well in Hebrews, in
which Paul straight admitted the impact of faith in understanding matters. He
said that only by faith can we understand how everything was created out of
nothing:
-
(Hebr 11:3) Through faith we understand that the
worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not
made of things which do appear.
But it is good to note that evolutionism is a
quite similar outlook on life. It too is based on faith such as faith in
creation. Many evolutionists do not want to admit that, but the matter is just
so. It is a question of a belief system, in which it is supposed and believed
in haphazardness and that everything can be explained without God’s share in
anything. In it is believed quite in the same way as in creation even though it
cannot be proven:
I
answered him: “The reason why the scientific theories change is that we do not
know everything, is it just so? We have not all proofs.”
“Yes, just right”, he said.
I answered: “But we will never know
everything”
“This is true”, he answered.
I said then: “We find also all the time new
proofs.”
“Quite right”, he said.
I answered: “This means that we cannot be
sure
of anything.”
“Just right”, he said.
“This means that we cannot be sure neither
of evolution.”
“No! Evolution is a fact”, he put in.
His logic crumbled and he only showed how
his own viewpoints arose from his biases.
The scientific models of both creationists
and evolutionist can change. However the beliefs, on which these models have
been built, will not change. The problem is that the most part of the
scientists do not understand how the evolution-belief (or –religion) is the
ground of scientific models (interpretation ways or stories) – models by which
it is tried to clear the present time. The evolutionists are not ready to
change their proper belief, according to which all life can be explained by
natural series of events without God’s share (or necessity). Evolution is a
religion to which they have engaged. The Christians must understand this. Evolution
is a religion, it is not science! (2)
A reason why evolution theory and either
creation cannot be proven, arises from that the past conditions cannot be
repeated and that we cannot visit in the past. We have in use only the present
time and the evidence being in it, such as the fossils, animals and plants, but
knowing the events of the past perfectly is impossible, because no-one has been
proving the supposed genesis and evolution of life. It is only a question of
faith and belief-system, but not of science, because these matters cannot be
proven scientifically in a laboratory. It is an impossibility.
THE PRECONCEPTIONS LEAD research
As evolution such as creation cannot be proven,
so in spite of all it is done research work in this area and it is generally led
by preconceptions.
It is
true that most scientists do not want to admit it, but they can think to be
free from them and impartial and neutral in their action. They probably do not
admit that they have any preconception or the outlook on life through which
they look at matters. They may deny it sharply.
However, the fact is that everyone of us has such attitudes and views
and the outlook on life through which we filter matters. If someone says that
it is not like that, he is certainly not honestly to himself. It appears, among
other things, in the life of a atheist, an evolutionist and a person who
believes in the Bible:
A atheist is sure that there is no God even though he
cannot prove it. (In other words, if someone has not seen God, it does not prove
His nonexistence. As well He can belong to that part about which the person has
no information). He has a bias that rejects all such information which
speaks about God’s existence, because it is against his beliefs. If he received
it, he could stop to be a atheist.
An evolutionist who believes in evolution, does research on the
ground of that it has really taken place. Even though he cannot prove it, he
believes in it and generally rejects arrogantly and straightaway the proofs
that seem to refer to opposite. He does not receive them and does not want to
think over other alternatives.
An
example of the belief in the theory is also, when someone seeks the missing
link of the human race and a progenitor in the wilderness of Africa. If he did
not have belief in the theory and his outlook on life, he certainly would not
trouble to do it. He does research just therefore because he believes in the
theory.
The
next citation indicates well how the scientist and other people have biases
that lead their research and teaching. They are common to all people:
I
changed then the method and taught then the real nature of science – what
science can do and what it cannot do. We examined those limitations in detail
that the scientists have when they examine the past. To students were told that
all scientists have preconceptions (beliefs) that they use when they examine
proofs. I told them about my belief in the Bible, as far as creation, the Fall
and the flood and other subjects are concerned, and how from this ground can be
built scientific models. I showed them how the proofs fit logically to the
creation model, but not to the model of evolutionists. I had started to use a
approaching way being based on preconceptions. The difference was
enormous. When the students went to other lessons and the teachers tried to
interpret the proofs again, the students were able to recognize suppositions
used by the teachers. The students could recognize how the beliefs of the
teachers influenced what was their attitude towards the proofs. The question of
the origin was outside of scientific proofs.
This confused some teachers so that once a
woman teacher came to me and stated as irritable that I had destroyed her
credibility. She had taught students that coal had been formed in mires during
millions of years, whereas I had taught students that there were different
theories about the forming of it. As this teacher had not told about the
limitations of science and had only taught her mire theory as a fact, her
credibility had collapsed in the eyes of the students. The reason for her anger
was that her credibility could not be restored any more and she knew it. And so
knew the students too.
I appeal to all who have a possibility to
teach creation/evolution-subject. Examine carefully your teaching methods. Make
sure that the students understand the whole philosophical area, in other words
the used suppositions and preconceptions. The result of this is that the
students will not only understand this question better but they will also
become better thinkers and scientists. (3)
A man who believes in the Bible
is as well overpowered by his
preconceptions and that cannot be denied. However, it is good to note that many
of them, who now regard the message of the Bible as true and believe in God,
are former atheists and evolutionists (as the writer of this writing) and
agnostics and other people with different outlooks on life. It indicates that
our outlook on life can change.
THE PROOFS
As the methods of science concerning the past
are limited and the former conditions and events cannot be repeated, it leads
so to that are outlook on life very much sets what we believe of the past; in
other words do we believe in supernatural God or an haphazard origin and
evolution.
However, it is important to note that all have in their use the same
proofs and facts, which are known. They will not change. It is only a question
of interpretation of the same facts and what conclusions can be drawn from
them. Do they refer to an haphazard origin and evolution or to opposite?
However, if it is examined systematically the most important axioms of
evolutionism, it can be noticed that there are big gaps in them. The facts and
the proofs fit clearly better to that model which the Genesis tells about the
origin of everything:
Big bang. Everything began from a big bang. Like this has
at least supposed in the most common standard theory about the origin of the universe. It has been supposed
that from the size of a pinhead (this idea is often expressed in the
writings of firm believers in this theory) was born the universe like the present and life.
But
what says common sense? If it is supposed that from the size of a chip of a stone would now be born a
new similar universe, how many would believe in it? How many an ordinary man
would believe that from
the size of a pinhead could be born quite a similar universe with dozens of billions galaxies,
hundreds of billions stars, a sun like the present one, the planets, sea and
water, the rocks, man, the birds, elephants, mosquitoes and so on, so what
would he answer? How reasonable would he deem the whole issue when holding a
chip of stone in his hand?
Isn’t
it so that if the matter is thought logically, it is an impossibility and one
of the greatest follies in the history of science? It is impossible and
logically foolish to think that the whole universe and variety of life has been
born by itself from a little chip. The words of Paul fit it well:
- (1 Cor 1:19,20) For it is
written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the
understanding of the prudent.
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where
is the disputer of this world? has not God made foolish the wisdom of this
world?
- (1 Cor 3:18-20) Let no man
deceive himself. If any man among you seems to be wise in this world, let him
become a fool, that he may be wise.
19 For the wisdom
of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He takes the wise in
their own craftiness.
20 And again, The Lord knows the thoughts of the
wise, that they are vain.
The galaxies and stars. As people do not want to believe in
the creation work of God, they have to find an explanation how all – also the
galaxies and stars – was born in spite of all.
Concerning the birth of galaxies, it is however a full enigma. The next
citation describes problematicness of the area. The birth of them by themselves
is an enigma and there are not good proofs of it:
I
do not want to claim that we really understand the process that created the
galaxies. The theory on the birth of the galaxies is one of the major unsolved
problems in astrophysics and we still seem to be far from the actual solution
even today. (Steven Weinberg, Kolme ensimmäistä minuuttia / The
First Three Minutes, p. 88)
What about the birth of stars? If it is so simple, where is the
evidence? Since it has been estimated that there are a hundred billion galaxies
in the sky, and a hundred billion stars in each, and if we divide this by 10
billion (the estimated age of the universe is 10–15 billion years), it
would mean that 10 new galaxies and 1,000 billions new stars would have to be
born every year! This huge amount of new stars and galaxies should be
detectable somehow, but why can we not detect it?
Detecting should not even be difficult,
because scientists believe that they can only see the past of the outer space.
Thus, we would only need do look at different distances between one light year
and 10–15 billion light years – so there would be many alternatives – and we
would surely see orbs forming. Why can we not detect this?
The birth of the solar
system and Earth is one problem. Especially the different composition
of the Sun, planets and moons is an enigma. The next two citations indicate
this problem:
Even nowadays, when
astrophysics has progressed enormously, many theories concerning the origin of
the solar system are unsatisfactory. Scientists still disagree about the
details. There is no commonly accepted theory in sight. (Jim Brooks, Näin
alkoi elämä, p. 57 / Origins of Life)
All presented hypotheses
about the origin of the solar system have serious inconsistencies. The
conclusion, at the moment, seems to be that the solar system cannot exist. (H.
Jeffreys, The Earth: Its Origin, History and Physical Constitution, 6th
edition, Cambridge University Press, 1976, p. 387)
The birth of life. As a man believes in supernatural God, it is
natural that he understands God to have created everything. Paul wrote about it
in Hebrews: “Through faith we understand that the
worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not
made of things which do appear” (Hebr 11:3).
However, he who believes in a random beginning and evolution also relies
fully on faith. This is the fact that cannot be denied. For the spontaneous
generation is an issue, which cannot have been proven, but is based on faith in
people’s minds. Attempts to generate it in a laboratory have been made, but
with no success whatsoever. No scientist has been able to get even near to
solving the origin of life, i.e. people believe in it even though practical
observations do not support it. The belief in the matter is only inside the
people.
Mutations and natural selection.
When talking about what promotes
evolution, usually the most important factors mentioned are mutations and
natural selection.
However, it is questionable to name mutations factors promoting
evolution. Through them have not been born new species or great changes, but
everything has taken place within certain limits. As experiments with the
banana fly have been carried for decades, they have indicated the same thing.
Through them the banana fly has not changed into a wasp, worm, or butterfly,
for example, but it has still remained a banana fly
After
having observed mutations in the banana flies for many years, Goldschmidt gave
up hope. He complained that the changes were so hopelessly minuscule that even
if a thousand mutations were to be combined in one individual, a new species
would not be created.
(Norman
Macbeth, Darwin Retried, 1971, p. 33) (4)
Even
though thousands of mutations have been examined in our time, we have found no
clear case in which mutation would have changed an animal into a more complex
one, produced a new structure, or even caused a deep, new adaptation. (R.D.
Clark, Darwin: Before and After, p. 131)
Natural selection is as problematic. It
cannot bring about anything new,
because it always selects only from what is old and already there. It cannot
create any new kinds of species or completely new species, because mere
surviving cannot bring about a new plant or animal:
It
is here that Darwin's principle decisively fails. Natural selection may perhaps
explain how those who are best equipped remain alive, but it can in no way
explain how the best equipped have come into existence. Natural selection is
not able to produce new properties: the process can only, given the chance,
select from already existing properties. A new organ cannot be
"selected", it must be created! Already existing genetic properties
and possibilities can be artificially refined, but neither natural nor
artificial selection is able to produce anything new. Natural selection may
perhaps explain how some individuals are destroyed, but not how some are created.
(5)
Fossils. If evolution and the theory of Darwin are true,
it should be easy to prove by fossils that are the only and best pieces of evidence of
possible evolution, because they are the only history of life at our disposal. If
we reject them, we will not have any other material to start with.
But
the problem is that even though fossils have been found tens of millions and
there are millions of fossils in museums, it has not been found, however,
developing forms of different animals, such as half developed wings, hands,
feet, senses, and other intermediate forms buried in the ground, even though the theory of Darwin requires so.
Such fossils and intermediate
forms are missing such as it is indicated in the following citations. Only
preconceptions and –attitudes can get us to think that evolution in the past is
true in spite of all:
No
matter how long in the past we go in the series of the fossils of those animals
that have lived before on earth, we cannot find even a trace of animal forms
that would be intermediate forms between great groups and phyla. The greatest
groups of the animal kingdom do not merge into each other. They are and have
been stationary since the beginning. Neither has no animal that could not be
set in its own phylum or a great group been found from the earliest stratified
rock types. This perfect lack of intermediate forms between the great groups of
animals can be interpreted in one way only. If we are willing to take the facts
as they are, we have to believe that there have never been such intermediate
forms, in other words, these great groups have had the same relation to each
other since the very beginning. (Austin H. Clark, The New Evolution, p.
189)
The
fact is, as every paleontologist knows, is that most of the species, genera and
families and almost all new groups more extensive than the level of a family,
appear in fossils suddenly and the well-known, gradational, transitional stages
following each other perfectly without gaps don’t pave their way (George
Gaylord Simpson, The Major Features of Evolution, 1953, p. 360)
In
this whole museum, there is not even the smallest thing that would prove the
origin of species from intermediate forms. The theory of evolution is not based
on observations and facts. As comes to speaking about the age of the human
race, the situation is the same. This museum is full of evidence showing how
mindless these theories are. (Dr. Etheridge, world-famous superior of the
British Museum [6])
Question of age. If we believe in that teaching of the Bible
that God is Creator, it requires that He has created everything and from it is
not even millions of years.
Instead, one axiom of “evolution-religion” is a thought of millions of
years, during which evolution has taken place. In it, or evolution and millions
of years, is believed, even though there are no observations in fossil material
about the changing of species.
A
thought of strata of millions of years is however easy to prove wrong. It
appears from the next points:
Long trunk fossils, which extend are through several
strata, are an indication that the strata have not been slowly over a period of
millions of years. According to the evolution view these strata should be
millions of years old, but in spite of all the trunks extend through them:
Many
signs refer to several overlapping strata being formed as a consequence of a
continuous and world-wide process, since the fossils of many plants and large
animals in an upright position penetrate several different strata without any
signs of being exposed to erosion over thousands of years at their upper or
lower end. Therefore, a trunk has remained in an upright position in the middle
of quickly accumulating layers of sediment. Large dinosaurs have also been
found similar positions. A 24-metre-tall tree trunk going through more than ten
strata was found near Edinburgh, and
everything indicated to the trunk having been quickly carried in place. Neither
have any signs indicating erosion between various geological periods been found
between the different strata. (7)
Thick
trunks that have remained in an upright position pierce through dozens of
meters of soil indicating how quickly everything has happened. The strata cannot
be a result of slow formation of peat, as the supporters of evolution claim.
(8)
Fossils in strata (also the trunk fossils mentioned above) are an
indication of a fast stratification of the strata. For when there are fossils
in these strata, it indicates that the mud and sludge slides have buried an
animal or plant very quickly, otherwise they cannot be born. In the Flood
mentioned by the Bible such is possible. Even the geologists admit that the
strata are best formed by floods and water.
The remains of man in ”250-300 million years
old” strata. An
indication of that, how dating is fully astray, is that from coal strata “from
across 300 million years”, or about 200 million years before dinosaurs, have
been found a gold
chain, an iron pot, and other objects that have belonged to a human. Human
fossils have also been found in similar strata (Glashouver, W. J. J., So entstand die Welt,
Hänssler, 1980, pp. 115-6; Bowden, M., Ape-men-Fact or Fallacy?
Sovereign Publications, 1981; Barnes, F.A., The Case of the Bones in Stone,
Desert/February, 1975, p. 36-39).
Furthermore human footprints have been found on rocks in Mexico, Arizona, Illinois,
New Mexico, Kentucky, and some other states. These rocks are supposed to be as
old as 250 million years: in other words, the leading fossil method must have
made a huge mistake or the coal period must have occurred only a couple of
thousand years ago. As comes to these findings, Albert C. Ingallis commented:
If man (...) existed in any
form as early on as in the carboniferous period, geological science is so
completely wrong that all geologists should give up their jobs and take up
truck driving. So, at least for the present, science rejects the tempting
alternative of a man having left those footprints. (The Carboniferous
Mystery, Scientific Monthly, vol. 162, Jan 1940, p.14)
The following text dating
back to the year 1938 also depicts footprints, resembling those of a human,
that were found in strata "more than 200 million years old” or long before
the supposed era of the dinosaurs. Researchers have had difficulties trying to
understand how these prints can even exist in strata that "old":
Human-like prints on rock are
a mystery to scientists. They cannot belong to a man, since they are too old –
but what kind of an odd, two-footed, amphibious animal could have made them?
What is this
animal that lived 250 million years ago and walked on its hind legs that had
human-like feet?
(...) This is a
mystery of science to which the answer is yet to be found. Not that science
would stop trying. (...) But for now, all that has been seen are 12 footprints
that peculiarly resemble those left by human feet, each 9 ½ " long and
6" wide at the widest point, where the toes spread. The prints were found
in a sandstone formation about 12 miles from Berea that is known to date back
to the Carboniferous period. These prints were uncovered by Dr. G. Wilbur, a
professor of geology in the University of Berea, and Mr. William Finnell.
A few men from
the Kentucky mountains recently visited professor Burroughs. They took him onto
their hills and showed him another place where there were many footprints. This
mountain seems to have been an "old Kentucky home" for an entire
family of mysterious animals, since professor Burroughs tells that the prints
varied in size from small 4½" long ones to the previously described
footprints that were almost 10" long. (...)
These footprints
are extremely peculiar. They are just the right size to be human – being nine
or ten inches in length – and almost the right shape. Almost anyone seeing them
will at first think that they have been made by human feet and it is almost
impossible to try to convince anyone to the contrary. (...)
But even the
boldest estimations regarding the appearance of the man on the Earth refer to a
million years – and these prints are 250 times as old. (...)
Such is the
mystery. A quarter of a billion years ago this animal, walking like a man, left
footprints on the widespread sand that hardened into rock over time. Then he
disappeared. And now the scientists are scratching their heads." (Science
News Letter 34, 278, 1938)
The age of the fossils. Concerning the fossils themselves,
it is good to note that they exist only in the present and there are no notes
or scraps of their age. No-one really knows when they have exactly died.
The problem of different dating
methods is that they are based on suppositions and their accuracy cannot be
proven ever. Contents
in different stones can very well be measured, and it is indeed measured, but
it is wrong to think that we could know their contents originally and the real
age. It is an impossibility. On grounds of fresh lava rock has been made
measurements, which have indicated it to be hundreds of millions years old, even
though it is not so. It indicates that the contents of stones do not give
truthful ages and they cannot be trusted.
The history of man. If it is believed in
“evolution-religion”, one of its axioms is the evolution of man during a long
time or during a few million years.
However, the fact is that our
knowledge about the history of the mankind extends only about 5000 years, when
at the same time appeared such things as constructing buildings and cities,
using metals, ceramics, ability to write and agriculture. Any of these matters
are not much older than that. This fact fits better the beginning told by the
Bible than the explanation given by evolutionism:
Arnold (my co-worker) and I
were first shocked when we discovered that the history only dates 5,000 years
back in time. (...) We had often read about this or that culture or
archaeological site being 20,000 years old. We quite quickly learned that these
figures and early dates are not accurately known and that the first dynasty of
Egypt is, as a matter of fact, the oldest even somehow confirmed historical
date. (9)
The earliest notes we have of
the history of man date only approximately 5,000 years to the past. (The
World Book Encyclopaedia, 1966, volume 6, p. 12)
In the recent excavations, the
most surprising issue has been how suddenly civilization appeared in the world.
This observation is quite at odds with what had been expected. It had been
thought that the older the period in question, the more primitive the
excavators would find it, until all the traces of civilization would disappear
and the primitive man would appear. This has not been the case neither in
Babylon nor in Egypt that are the oldest known human settlements. (10)
What about creation? When we start to examine mentions of the Bible about the beginning of
all, we are on more considerably stable ground than in evolution theory. For
example the seven-day week, which is mentioned already in the first chapters of
Genesis, is familiar to all nations from very ancient times. It had already
appeared for thousands of years globally and so it is difficult to explain its
origin in any other way than that it is an inheritance from common ancestors:
We
can find information about the seven-day week from very ancient times to be in
the knowledge of all nations – including Ethiopians, Arabs, Native Americans –
all nations in the East have at all times used this seven-day week which is
difficult to explain without admitting that this information has been received
from the common ancestors of mankind. (11)
The Fall is an issue about which we can find evidence.
The pieces of evidence include, for example, the seal and stories appearing in
the traditional knowledge of nations – which we are going to list next –
indicating how the nations have had information from very ancient times
concerning the Fall that has effected future generations.
Near
Nineveh in Tepe Gawra was found an imprint of a seal where there is a
picture of a man and a woman with bowed heads as an result of an accident, and
a snake following them. It has been thought that the picture may represent
being banished from Paradise. This seal is preserved in a museum in
Philadelphia, U.S.A.
In
Mesopotamia another imprint of a seal was found. It describes a man and a woman
sitting on both sides of a tree and a snake which is in an upright position
just behind the woman. This seems to be an accurate description of the Fall
and it indicates that the nations that lived in Mesopotamia had information
about this event.
One
Sumerian poem, from which a part has been interpreted, also seems to refer to the
Fall. It speaks about a woman who ate that which was forbidden and by this she
became the mother of sin. This seems to be a description of Eve, the spouse of
Adam, who first fell into sin and then lured her husband to sin. (Alfred Jeremias, Das Alte Testament im
lichtes des alten orients, Leipzig 1930, 4. part, p. 99):
"The woman ate it which was forbidden and the
woman, the mother of sin, did wrong. The mother of sin had a painful
experience.”
Accounts
of the Fall that have spread as different versions among the nations are one
possible reference to the historicity of this event. One of these accounts has
been preserved from the Santaals, an Native American tribe. What is interesting
there is that in addition to the Fall, the Flood and also the confusing of
languages are mentioned:
According
to Kolean a long, a long time ago Thakur Jiu, genuine God, created the first man,
Haram, and the first woman, Ayo, and put them to live far away from India
towards the west, to the region named Hihiri Pipiri. There a creature called
Lita tempted people to make rice beer. After that, she provoked them to pour a
part of the beer on the ground as an offering to Satan. Haram and Ayo got drunk
from the rest of the beer and slept. When they woke up they saw that they were
undressed and were ashamed of it.
The
similarities of the story of Kolean to the story of the Bible made a deep impression
on Skrefsrud. But the story still continued...
Ayo
later bore Haram seven sons and seven daughters, who married and established
seven tribes. Those tribes wandered to the country which was called Kroj Kaman,
and there were met with destruction. Thakur Jiu called people "to return
to him". When they refused, Thakur Jiu took "the devout married
couple" for protection into some cave of mountain Harata (note the
similarity with the Bible’s name of Ararat). Then Thakur Jiu allowed the rest
of the mankind to drown in the flood. Later the descendants of "the devout
married couple" multiplied many times and wandered to a plain which was
called Sasan Beda ("mustard field"). There Thakur Jiu
separated them into many different nations (the confusing of languages in
Babel?). (12)
The
traditional knowledge of Karens who live In Burma, also tells about the Fall.
In one of their songs it is told how Y'wa, the true God, in the beginning
created the world, and indicated also "the test fruit" but Mu-kaw-lee
betrayed two persons. This is how people started to become ill and to age, and
death came into the world:
In
the beginning Y'wa gave form to the world.
He
indicated food and drink.
He
indicated "the test fruit".
He
gave accurate commands.
Mu-kaw-lee
betrayed two persons.
He
got them to eat the test fruit.
They
disobeyed; did not believe Y'wa...
When
they ate the test fruit,
they
faced illnesses, ageing, and death. (13)
The Flood is referred to in at least 140–150 stories
that have been found in different parts of the world and among different
tribes. Many of these stories have naturally been colored and changed over the
years but essentially all of those accounts mention water as the cause of the
devastation.
Furthermore there are thousands of proofs about a global flood
throughout the world. We will not list them here so accurately. However, for
example the remains of marine creatures that appear on all high mountains (the
Himalayas, Andes, Alps, Rocky Mountains, Ural, Altai …), about
which the next two examples from the books of secular geologists tell, are an
indication of the matter. It is only spiritual blindness and prejudice if man
cannot see these clear proofs. (Such person should ask himself, what proofs
are enough so that he would change his opinion. If the remains of marine
animals on all high mountains are not that, so what are that?):
Harutaka
Sakai from the Japanese University in Kyushu has for many years researched
these marine fossils in the Himalayan Mountains. He and his group have listed a
whole aquarium from the Mesozoic period. Tender sea lilies, relatives to the
current sea urchins and starfishes, were found on cliffs over three kilometres
above sea level. Ammonites, belemnites, corals, and plankton fossils are found
in the rocks of the mountains. (…)
At an altitude of two kilometres above sea
level, the geologists found markings the sea had made. There was a wavelike
rock surface, similar to that which is formed by waves on sand in low water.
Yellow stripes of limestone have been found even on the peak of Mount Everest,
formed from innumerable remains of marine creatures under water. (Maapallo
ihmeiden planeetta, p. 55)
There
is reason to look closely at the original nature of the rocks in the mountain ranges.
It is best seen in the Alps, in the lime Alps of the northern, so-called
Helvetian zone. Limestone is the main rock material. If we were to scale the
steep slopes of some mountain or peak – if we had the energy to climb up there
– we would find fossilized remains of marine creatures. They are often badly
damaged, but it is possible to find recognizable pieces. All those fossils are
lime shells or skeletons of sea creatures. Among them are spiral twisted
ammonites and many bivalves. (…) The reader might wonder at this point what it
means that mountain ranges hold so many sediments which can also be found
stratified in the bottom of the sea. (p. 236,237, Pentti Eskola,
Muuttuva maa)
The tower of Babel is one of those issues about
which the different nations have traditional knowledge. It has been written
even in the ancient stone slabs and the stories of different nations. These
following records have been preserved:
- From
the history of Mexico (Mexican antiquity, 9. Part, p. 321) a story has
been preserved from which we can find many similarities to the texts in the
Bible. It describes among other things the Flood, the increase of the people
after it, the building of the tower, and also the confusing of the languages.
One significant similarity is that the mountains were under water to the depth
of 15 cubits, as is mentioned in Genesis (Gen 7:20):
Frightening rains and lightning from the sky destroyed
the people and also the whole country without exception, and also the highest
mountains were covered by water, to the depth of fifteen cubits. After the
Flood, the people multiplied on earth and built a very high zacual (tower) for
protection, in case the other world would be destroyed. Shortly after this,
their language was confused, and when they could not understand each other,
they scattered around the earth. (14)
- One more reference to the confusing of the languages is a story found
from Babel about the destruction of the tower and confusing of the languages in
the same way as the Bible does. The only major difference is that the story is
told polytheistically:
Building this temple insulted the Gods. One night they
threw to the ground what had been built. They scattered people to different
countries and made their speech strange. They prevented any advances in work.
(15)
- The
Sumerians have been regarded to be the earliest civilized nation in the Middle
East. They have also preserved information about the early stages of mankind.
We have seen one example in the previous story about "the mother of
sin" (see the Fall passage). Their next poem is connected with the early
history of mankind. It speaks about the time before the confusing of the
languages, in other words, of the time when all people praised one supreme god
Enlil in one language:
Once
upon a time there were no snakes,
no
scorpions,
no
hyenas, no lions,
no
fear, no fright,
the
man did not have any competition.
Once
upon a time there was a time when the countries of Subur and Hamaz
(later)
multilingual Sumer, the great land of princely divine laws,
Uri
that had everything that is imaginable,
The
land of Martu which rested in security,
The whole world, all people together
praised supreme Enlil in one language. (16)
- One special
reference to the ancient tower of Babel can be found from Nabopolassar, who was
the founder of the New-Babylonian kingdom (626–605 B.C.) and the father of
famous Nebuchadnezzar. In his statement about the tower of Babel and about
building it, he says:
At
that time Marduk commanded me to build the tower of Babel which had been
destroyed in the old days, to lay down a firm foundation when the top of the
tower reached heaven.
His
son Nebuchadnezzar continued the same issue and spoke about the tower competing
with heaven:
I still built the tower for Etemenank so that it
competed with heaven.
TO
THE NEW LIFE
As people reject speeches about spiritual
issues, it arises so from that they have strong preconceptions and –thoughts. Because
of them it is difficult for them to receive other views. It does not succeed,
because this kind of attitude prevents to think over other alternatives and it
does not want to inquire into matters (compare the words of Jesus, John 7:17: If
any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God,
or whether I speak of myself.).
It can
finally lead to that, if a person has this kind of attitude, that it leaves him
outside the kingdom of God. Paul’s own citizens in his time are one example of
that:
- (Acts 13:45-47) But when the Jews
saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spoke against those
things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.
46 Then Paul and
Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God
should first have been spoken to you: but seeing you put it from you, and judge
yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, see, we turn to the Gentiles.
47 For so has the Lord commanded us, saying, I
have set you to be a light of the Gentiles, that you should be for salvation to
the ends of the earth.
In any case, if you are interested in spiritual
issues and before all are ready to turn to God and to receive eternal life, it
is possible. The next points are important:
Understand the significance of Jesus!
-
(John 14:6) Jesus said to him, I am the way, the
truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me.
-
(John 10:9) I am the door: by me if any man enter in,
he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find
pasture.
- (Acts 4:11,12) This is the stone which
was set at nothing of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for
there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
Firstly you must understand the significance of
Jesus, that only in Him there is salvation and an access to God and to heaven.
The problem of many religious people is just that they have only
the forms and exterior, but not Jesus Christ in their life. They can be
baptised, members of a church, partake of the Communion and give many to
charity. Furthermore they can even pray and be turned from some forms of sin,
but in spite of all Jesus is outside their heart and waits for a chance to step
into their lives:
- (Rev 3:20) Behold, I stand at the door, and
knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him,
and will sup with him, and he with me.
A reason why
people do not have eternal life, arises just from that they have not received
Jesus Christ into their life and turned to Him: ”And you will not come to me, that you might have life” (John 5:40). They
refuse to come to Him and therefore they have not yet eternal life. The Bible
says (1 John 5:11,12): And this is the
record, that God has given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He
that has the Son has life; and he that has not the Son of God has not life, so we must receive Jesus Christ into our life and
turn to Him. If you do it, or receive Him, you
are a child of God and you have eternal life:
-
(John 1:12) But as many as received him, to them gave
he power to become the sons of God, even to
them that believe on his name
Receive so Jesus Christ into your life and do
not reject Him and grace that comes through Him. You will never regret it:
My friend, if you are damned,
it is not because of your sins but because you have not received mercy, which
God offers to you through Jesus. That is why it is fair. If you reject Jesus,
what can God do? Then, you dismiss your only hope of salvation. (17)
THE
PRAYER OF SALVATION:
Lord, Jesus, I turn to You. I
confess that I have sinned against You and have not lived according to Your will.
However, I want to turn away from my sins and follow You with all my heart. I
also believe that my sins have been forgiven through Your atonement and I have
received eternal life through You. I thank You for the salvation that You have
given me. Amen.
REFERENCES:
1.
Ken Ham: Valhe: Evoluutio (The Lie: Evolution), p. 22,23
2.
Ken Ham: Valhe: Evoluutio (The Lie: Evolution), p. 39
3.
Ken Ham: Valhe: Evoluutio (The Lie: Evolution), p. 50,51
4. Cit. in: "Elämä maan päällä - kehityksen vai
luomisen tulos?", Jeh. witnesses, p. 105
5. Thoralf Gulbrandsen: "Puuttuva rengas"
[Jakten på apemennesket], p. 46
6. Thoralf Gulbrandsen: Puuttuva rengas [Jakten på
apemennesket], p. 94
7. Sylvia Baker: Kehitysoppi ja
Raamatun arvovalta, p. 121, edited in Finnish by Pekka Reinikainen
8. Kimmo Pälikkö ja Markku Särelä: Taustaa
tekijänoikeudesta maailmaan, p. 124,125
9. Science, 3.3.1961, p. 624 - Cit. from: Onko
ihminen kehityksen vai luomisen tulos, Jeh. witnesses
10.
P.J. Wiseman: New Discoveries in Babylonia About Genesis, 1949, p. 28.
Cit. in : Onko ihminen
kehityksen vai luomisen tulos, Jeh. witnesses
11.Tri
John Kitto in Encyclopedia of Biblical Literature, II, keyword
"Sabbath", p. 655
12. Don Richardson: Iankaikkisuus heidän sydämissään
(Eternity in Their Hearts), p. 52,53.
13. Same, p. 96.
14. Cit from: "Oliko vedenpaisumus ja Nooan
arkki mahdollinen?", Toivo Seljavaara, p. 6,7.
15. Free, Joseph, P.: Archaeology and Bible history, 12. p. 1973 – Cit
from: "Voiko Raamattuun
luottaa", Uuras Saarnivaara, p. 187.
16. ARMAS SALONEN: Sumeri ja sen henkinen perintö
(Keuruu 1962), p. 138,139.
17. OSWALD J. SMITH :Maa johon kaipaan, p. 89
