Refuting Noah's Ark Critics

[Aaron]

The concept of Biblical Literalism, as it is understood today, was foreign to the Church Fathers. Jesus told all sorts of stories to illustrate profound truths. So did Augustine and the other Fathers. That they were fiction didn’t change the message. Noah is about sin and redemption.

In any case, you have no idea how silly all of this sounds to scientists, many of whom are believers like me. Poodles and German Shepherds are still dogs. Zebras and donkeys, while clearly related like chimps and people, diverged millions of years ago.

http://creation.com/refuting-noahs-ark-critics
​

How many times have we heard that before? "Quite sounding silly and suddenly the whole world will accept the Gospel."

 

[OldRegular]

Jesus Christ put His stamp of approval on all the books of the Old Testament. That alone is good enough for me.

That being said it seems to me that the logical mind must understand that time and chance could not result in the complexity of life. I have presented the following before but it seems appropriate here.

The following account is extracted from John Gill’s Body of Divinity [page 5, chapter 1]. Gill takes the passage from Crantz’s History of Greenland.

Most admirable was the reasoning of a wild Greenlander, which he declared to a missionary to be the reasoning of his mind before his conversion; he said to him,

“It is true we were ignorant heathens, and knew nothing of God, or a Saviour; and, indeed, who should tell us of him till you come? but thou must not imagine that no Greenlander thinks about these things. I myself have often thought: a ‘kajak’ (a boat) with all its tackle and implements, does not grow into existence of itself; but must be made by the labour and ingenuity of man; and one that does not understand it would directly spoil it. Now the meanest bird has far more skill displayed in its structure, than the best ‘kajak’; and no man can make a bird: but there is still a far greater art shown in the formation of a man, than of any other creature. Who was it that made him? I thought myself that he proceeded from his parents, and they from their parents; but some must have been the first parents; whence did they come? common report informs me, they grew out of the earth: but if so, why does it not still happen that men grow out of the earth? and from whence did this same earth itself, the sea, the sun, the moon, and stars, arise into existence? Certainly there must be some Being who made all these things; a Being that always was, and can never cease to be. He must be inexpressibly more mighty, knowing, and wise, than the wisest man. He must be very good too, because that everything that he has made is good, useful, and necessary for us. Ah, did I but know him, how would I love him and honour him! But who has seen him? who has ever conversed with him? None of us poor men. Yet there may be men too that know something of him. O that I could but speak with such! therefore,” said he, “as soon as ever I heard you speak of this great Being, I believed it directly, with all my heart; because I had so long desired to hear it.'”

John Gill notes about the above testimony: “A glaring proof this, that a supreme Being, the first cause of all things, is to be concluded from the works of creation.”

And then there is the primer law of Science, the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This Law states basically that, absent external influence, order does not come from disorder; In fact the reverse is true.

And then there are the comments of Robert Jastrow:

Second Law of Thermodynamics - In the Beginning...
The implications of the Second Law of Thermodynamics are considerable. The universe is constantly losing usable energy and never gaining. We logically conclude the universe is not eternal. The universe had a finite beginning -- the moment at which it was at "zero entropy" (its most ordered possible state). Like a wind-up clock, the universe is winding down, as if at one point it was fully wound up and has been winding down ever since. The question is who wound up the clock?

The theological implications are obvious. NASA Astronomer Robert Jastrow commented on these implications when he said, "Theologians generally are delighted with the proof that the universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset. It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence." (Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 1978, p. 16.)

Jastrow went on to say, "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (God and the Astronomers, p. 116.) It seems the Cosmic Egg that was the birth of our universe logically requires a Cosmic Chicken...

http://www.allaboutscience.org/second-law-of-thermodynamics.htm

 

[Aaron]

Darwinism is the idolatry of the 19th, 20th and 21st Centuries.

 

[quantumfaith]

Definition of IDOLATRY

1 the worship of a physical object as a god
2 immoderate attachment or devotion to something

Very easy to allow a multitude of things to become as "idolatry" in our lives. Darwinism and the general intellectual concept of evolution is no more evil than anything else we place before and worship before the God of creation. To be sure, there are many in scientific community for whom "evolution" has become their answer for the desire that there be no God and no absolutes.