|
Written by Kim Wall
|
|
Thursday, 02 September 2010 19:56 |
|
SkyNews recently quoted Professor Stephen Hawking as saying, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." I will be the first to admit that I do not hold a Ph.D. in Astro Physics. But what sort of intelligence would be required to understand that nothing produces exactly … nothing? Hawking believes that the universe will "create itself" because of a physical law. But surely he realizes that you cannot start with a law of physics! Exactly what was there before the so-called Big Bang? Nothing. No matter, no energy, no laws of matter and energy, not even space. Complete nothingness. Now, if Dr. Hawking wants to really make headway into his problem of origins, he must explain how absolutely nothing can produce something. How does a finely tuned law - such as that of gravity - simply pop into existence at the exact moment that matter and energy somehow pop into existence out of nothing? If he could explain that, then he would be onto something. But even if he could explain the miracle of the universe popping into being all on it's own, he would still have many, many more miracles to explain. For starters, how did all of the other necessary laws of physics happen to come into existence and be tuned to their precise settings? How did matter self-organize itself into languages and codes? Just how did matter design itself to be a mind - capable of abstract thought and self-awareness? But Professor Hawking cannot scientifically show how it all began, much less all of the billions of other miracles that must have followed the first miracle of the origin of the universe - now can he? But I suspect he will keep trying. He mustn't give up because he has committed himself to a way of thinking that requires these miracles to have somehow happened in the past - all on their own. This is his worldview. It's interesting that my own worldview also requires a belief in miracles. However, I believe that miracles require a "miracle-maker", rather than some hocus pocus barrage of unknown forces. And my miracle-maker has in fact made Himself known - unlike the dark, mysterious forces in which Hawking seems to place his faith. You see, it's really quite logical. Out of nothing, nothing comes. In order for the universe to be possible, it must have come from something outside of itself. Are you ready for the answer? God is OUTSIDE of space and time. He is the only rational explanation for the existence of the universe. The words of Genesis 1:1 come to mind, "In the Beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Since God created them, He cannot be subject to them or contained by them. Unlike Hawking's law of gravity - which is dependent on the very matter which it governs! We all have one - a worldview that is. Exactly what is yours based in? |
|
Written by Kim Wall
|
|
Wednesday, 14 July 2010 18:30 |
When they tell you that life evolved to crawl out of the primordial seas, evolved into cows, then crawled back in the sea to evolve into whales, show them this picture and ask them if they really believe that.
If they say they believe it, ask them what species of offspring the woman in the picture will produce. They will say "human". Remind them that this is because God set the law of "after their kind" into motion in the beginning and it has been working this way ever since.
No one has ever observed anything but this law in nature. No one will ever observe anything other than this law in the future.
So we can confidently say that the woman will produce a human - every time. Cows will always produce cows, whales will always produce whales. Our observations in the present, in conjunction with the fossil record, provide the empirical evidence which confirms what God has recorded for us.
Be critical thinkers!!
Your uncle Kim
|
|
|
Written by Kim Wall
|
|
Sunday, 11 July 2010 16:20 |
When Mt St Helens erupted in May of 1980, it blasted debris from it's NW side at 600 mph at temperatures over 680 degrees F with a force of a 5 megaton bomb. Over 4,000 vertical feet of mountain slid off and into Spirit Lake in less than 2 minutes. The debris splashed water from the lake as high as 850 feet.
The 200 foot high wall of mud from the lateral explosion tore through the Toutle valley at high speeds. Living organisms were buried where they lived. New canyons and tributaries were instantly created.
The Mt St Helens event would forever change the way geologists interpreted the Earth's rock layers. Slow and gradual processes would no longer be the only explanatory tool for interpreting the past.
As destructive as it was, it was tiny compared to the catastrophism recorded in the sedimentary layers on every continent. Taking this a step further, creation scientists are able to use the history recorded in Genesis about a global catastrophic flood which covered the globe and use it as a foundation for better interpreting the sediments.
Too bad that secular geologists do not allow for Biblical history to provide them an accurate starting point upon which to base their interpretations. What better starting point than that of someone who was an eye-witness and who is incapable of communicating anything but truth!
Yes, there was a flood that covered the Earth about 4,500 years ago that was brought about because of judgment. But this was in the past. There is a future impending judgment that will take place. This one cannot be compared to even 100 Mt St Helens. This one will see the entire universe be rolled up like a scroll, melting with intense heat.
This is the judgment that should be on the minds of those outside of Christ. This is the one to ponder. Are you ready for it?
By Kim Wall
|
|
|
Written by Kim Wall
|
|
Friday, 28 May 2010 09:28 |
|
Question from a friend: Have you read the Epic of Gilgamesh? I'd be curious to see what your thoughts are on the parallels and differences in the flood accounts of the epic vs. those of the Genesis account. Answer: It has been a while, but yes, I am familiar with it. While interesting, most serious Old Testament scholars believe that Moses would not have used this as a basis for Genesis 6-10. Every culture on the planet, including past cultures, have some sort of flood legend. So, personally, I am not surprised or alarmed that one of them might predate Genesis. But this does not automatically mean, that Moses would have used this material (either all scripture is God breathed, or it is not). There are too many major differences in the accounts for that to make sense. God's timing is just that - His timing. At the right time in history, God guided Moses to write. Other cultures could have well written their own distorted version before Moses, but their account would not have been guided by God. Besides this, the secular timeline used by old-Earth historians is not in accordance with the true timeline of the Bible. So exactly what predates what? The Akkadian language would not have even been around until the incident at Babel (Gen 10), where all major language groups would have come into being at the same time.
If you would like to dive deeper, take a look at this thesis:http://creation.com/comparative-study-of-gilgamesh-and-genesis-introduction
I may not agree with all of the statements in this document, but overall, I would agree with it's conclusion. 
|
|
Written by Kim Wall
|
|
Saturday, 17 April 2010 14:42 |
|
Bones found in a cave in South Africa have recently made the news. Exactly what was found and exactly what does it mean? While we can answer the first question, the second will require imagination and  interpretation. First, let's take a look at the facts - these are not disputable nor are they subject to interpretation. What was found: Nearly complete skull and skeleton of a small creature
Upper teeth, partial jawbone, and partial skeleton of a larger creature
Other bones from other creatures
Where were they found: In a cave in close to Johannesburg, South Africa (in Malapa) What was observed about the bones (observational science): Long arms, short curved fingers, wrists
Slanted face on the skull
Cranial capacity around 420 cm3 (which is in the ape range)
Relatively long arms compared to body
What the name means: Australopithecus sediba = southern ape from a well (or spring) These are the facts and what is actually known. Anything beyond these facts fall outside of observable science. For example, how did these creatures die? When did they live? Did they have offspring? Questions like these can only be answered with observation. Since no one alive today observed these creatures while they were still living, we cannot claim to positively know the answers. However, that does not stop even the best of scientific minds from using their imaginations to speculate and arrive at conclusions. What are the speculations and personal interpretations which have been spun out of the observable facts? Here is a short list: Some say they walked upright, some say that they did not
Some say they fell in the cave, some say they were washed into the cave
Some say the skulls look like other apes in this class, some say they look like human skulls
Some say the bones belong to extinct apes, some say they belong to extinct humans
Some say the bones are around 2 million years old, some say they are older, some say they are much younger, some say we cannot know the age
Some say the pelvis is human-like, some say the pelvis is normal for juvenile apes
Some say they lived in trees, some say they spent more time on the ground
Some say they were on their way to becoming human, some say they look like any other extinct ape for this species
Don't be fooled into thinking that scientists are above speculation and using their imagination. And don't think for a moment that they will eventually arrive at a consensus on the matter. The facts surrounding the find will always be the facts. Anything outside of this will always be disputable and will stem from human imagination. What you imagine will depend entirely on what you believe about human origins. If you have faith in the ideology that all living creatures are the result of random, blind events, then you will have no problem conjuring up an evolutionary scenario involving these extinct creatures. On the other hand, you might believe that life is too complex to have arisen out of chaos and that there is something uniquely different about humans that cannot be said about any other living creature. If this is your belief, then you already know that these creatures do not fit within any speculative tale of human origins at all. Rather, they are either 100% ape or 100% human and nothing else. I suspect that when all of the hype is settled, this is exactly where they will end up. This is where they always end up. Be a critical thinker. Then perhaps you will be able to see past the fallible imaginations of the brightest minds in science and come face to face with the One who designed the mind in the first place! Sources: Berger et al, “Australopithecus sediba: A New Species of Homo-Like Australopith from South Africa,” Science, 9 April 2010: Vol. 328. no. 5975, pp. 195-204, DOI: 10.1126/science.1184944 Australopithecus sediba - no human ancestor, http://creation.com/sediba-not-human-ancestor Another Fossil "Human Ancestor" Claimed, http://creationsafaris.com/crev201004.htm#20100408a |
Page 1 of 6
|
