Also, I didn't put it up, but Hannah had her first run in with stiches about a month ago. She had a shelf fall on her and put a pretty big cut right at her hairline and had to have 3 stitches. This little girl never flinched or moved the entire time she was at the doctor. We are thankful to the Lord that in His providence she healed up nicely and was not hurt terribly, but it was a huge shot to the wallet.........almost $300. I think I need to find a do-it-yourself stitch kit and handle it myself. I think I could do it........really!
I was thinking the other day and would like to develop it. I have been watching the John Ankerberg Show. I let the DVR record it. Over the last three weeks they h
ave had the discussion of whether Genesis is describing literal days or whether they refer to millions of years. Frankly, I think Dr. Hugh Ross is "out to lunch" on the subject. I side with a real day. I know, I know some of you will give me a hard time in regards to my thinking concerning the millenium. However, it seems logical to me that when God created He did so by speaking. I might ask the question, "Exactly how long does it take for God to create?" Did it take him a full day and evening? If God is capable of such incredible power those things that He created were instantaneous! He was not molding and shaping, but simply speaking and those things came to pass.
ave had the discussion of whether Genesis is describing literal days or whether they refer to millions of years. Frankly, I think Dr. Hugh Ross is "out to lunch" on the subject. I side with a real day. I know, I know some of you will give me a hard time in regards to my thinking concerning the millenium. However, it seems logical to me that when God created He did so by speaking. I might ask the question, "Exactly how long does it take for God to create?" Did it take him a full day and evening? If God is capable of such incredible power those things that He created were instantaneous! He was not molding and shaping, but simply speaking and those things came to pass.This leads to some of my thinking concerning the lies spawned by evolution. Many pregnant women go in for an abortion and be told that what they are actually carrying is not a real human being, but is in the process of becoming a human. In fact, I am surprised they have not held up the embryo or the fetus as the "missing link". Yet in very non direct terms they say that a baby in the womb is actually going through the process in 9 months that took humans millions of years to go through just to become human! This is simply born out of the fact that a young baby (embryo) looks very similar early on to other creatures and goes
through various other stages where it resembles other creatures at other stages until it becomes human. However, they are never able to determine precisely when this is. Incredible! My point is this: How can both be true? How can it take millions of years for an ameoba in some primordial soup to become a man and yet in 9 months the entire cycle can take place? It can't possibly be the same.I think this could be developed into a good apologetic against the claims of evolution. Any of you who might have some input I would greatly appreciate it.
Also, I am trying to develop a small web site for hosting tracts of a reformed nature and make them available for download for free. Many of you are incredibly gifted and have written some good material that I would like to use and will give you full credit for. I and others have been looking for something like this and I decided to at least make an attempt to get it up on the web. I am planning also on having various languages. If you are interested, email me.
9 comments:
It amazes me that evolutionists continue to perpetuate such fraudulent and discredited theories. You may be familiar with this information, but in case you or anyone else reading are not here is the truth about these theories.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/appendix1.asp
I ran across one evolutionist's website where he mourned the fact that the theory of ontogeny recapitulates philogeny had been long discredited. Even so, he wrote about it extensively as though it had not been discredited.
For some reason the link didn't paste correctly. Hopefully this will do the trick:
AIG
Thanks Dawn,
For some reason, the important distinction is not on the evidence. It is always on the interpretation of the evidence. I appreciate the link. Maybe it will be helpful in forming an apologetic using this particular issue.
Tim, I am intrigued by the abortion apologetic idea, but am skeptical.
You are quite right that what you have in pregnancy is a life form that goes from two individual cells combining to a fully formed baby in nine months. I totally agree that this is by design and not by chance.
My skepticism comes from the conviction that women who have abortions would generally do so even if they believed in a Creator. In fact, most of them do.
What lets them out is not evolution, but rather a supposed ethic of "Love." God loves them too much to want to see them saddled with a baby at a young age; or Mom loves the baby too much to allow it to comes into the world in difficult circumstances. Etc., etc.
In sum, this speaks directly to your next post on the topic of the Christian's duty to the ethical requirements of the Law of God. Many Christians argue for an ethic of Love, based on a supposed "law of Christ" that is substantively different from the moral stipulations found in Moses. But the wicked can justify anything by "Love," and they do everyday. We don't merely need to be told to love; but we also need to be given the details about what love is and does.
Gordon,
Actually I agree with that line of thinking. Where my mind was going in relation to the argument of evolution was that the evolutionists persist in saying it takes millions of years for man to evolve from something else. Not only that, but it takes the same amount of time for any other animal to become what it does. Yet in many of their own writings they conclude that this happens in 9 months in the womb. I guess my starting point is the obvious contradiction they are putting forth. How can a baby go through all the stages of evolution in 9 months and yet it takes millions of years for men to evolve from something else?
Okay, gotcha.
You're talking about a creationist argument using human gestation, and not really abortion...right?
That's correct. However, the implications would certainly effect the abortion issue, since many women are told that what is inside them is not yet human, because of evolutionary theory. So this would actually cut both ways.
Post a Comment