Days
Commentator
A Higher View
Creationists are the most misunderstood of all people; the biggest reason being, they mostly misunderstand their own position. Rather than try to prove that life points to Biblical text, why not simple believe the Bible and not bother proving anything? It is total folly for the infidel to say he has proven that God does not exist. Why partake in that argument? You say that dinosaurs existed 160 million years ago? First, show me where you have certain understanding of something 160,000 years ago. The truth is man only has documents that date back 5000 years at the most; after that it is all speculation and theory. There is no higher education, higher understanding, rather, our scientific community has developed a culture of higher musing. Accepting those musings as anything that merits scientific argument is fool hearty and launches one into the world of their amusements, a place of ridicule and snobbery that pretends to hold the perch of higher learning.
Consider the Lilly and moth debate of Madagascar. Darwin rightly and boldly launched the idea that somewhere in their environment, must exist a moth with a minimum 12 inch sucker that could reach the nectar buried deep inside that Lilly. The simplistic mind set of evolutionists is that the genesis of this specialized species happens magically in response to the environment, which also appeared magically on its own. Both the appearing of this incredibly engineered Lilly and the matching moth design that could not have any other use in nature are living proof of intelligent design. But rather than face this, the evolutionists immediately submerge into argument and ridicule; thinking this refusal to face facts is somehow representative of higher learning. Since the species, by itself, cannot intelligently shape its own development; the bottom line in evolutionists' argument is to credit intelligent design to "nature". How much higher is this viewpoint than that of Creationists? In a nutshell, the evolutionist has taken the accomplishments of God and credited them to his created works; claiming that the earth is mysteriously self engineering and possesses the attributes of a divine hand in and of itself; which then proves that such a divine hand doesn't exist in heaven. In short, the evidence of God's hand at work in his handiwork is taken as an attribute of the handiwork and the conclusion is that the hand exists only in nature and the connection with heaven is severed.
The evolutionists prove themselves to be hopelessly fighting God with God's own witnesses. They resurrect the engineering in nature as a self-contained attribute. But in so doing they confess that intelligent design and ongoing engineering exists. Well, it is so obvious, and besides, it is tough to call Einstein a fool with no understanding. The problem with their argument is the old dilemma of denying that God exists while acknowledging his testimony. If nature somehow was imbued with intelligent design and an ongoing ability to self engineer her species; we have come full circle to the altar of the unknown god. We have the report of God's hand at work, we simply deny it is God's hand, yet we embrace the work. So what is this mysterious work? Well, it is nature. And what is this mysterious god that you label "nature"? Well, it is the same old God of creation: but this time we don't want to confess him... so we bundle up intelligent design and ongoing engineering and we label the same old handwork of Genesis as "nature". Having stolen the Master's skill set, we now deny his existence and then we rear the altar of the unknown god; all our specials on TV and our published works of higher education.
When evolution can perform such complicated tasks as building deoxyribonucleic acid, which is so bloody complicated, I mean c'mon people, just the strand itself has astronomical length, and then it reproduces!... any way when evolution can take simple elements and produce DNA molecules, then there's something intelligent at work there. Intelligent design is just a phrase to get the idea into dead heads that evolution is way too amazing in and of itself to happen without the presence of God. But even at that, DNA can be dead, so even if the elements all came together by chance, which has the same probability as finding a working Cadillac spit out of a volcano, but let's go there, let's assemble the DNA strand purely by chance, that's already intelligent design, isn't it? And still, that still doesn't make the DNA alive, does it? Dead DNA doesn't reproduce. So, just assembling the elements doesn't give you life.
Dead DNA isn't alive, is it? That double helix of amino acids is not built out of stone, it is a product of life, not the producer of life.
Cosmologists assume that life just pops up where the elements and conditions permit it. But now think about this... sperm dies. Can you produce a baby in the lab from dead sperm? If life automatically pops up when the elements and conditions are present; why can't you produce a baby from dead sperm?
Life is the presence of the spirit. God is a spirit. gods are spirits. We are spirits. While our spirits are present in our bodies, our bodies are alive. When our spirits leave our bodies, our bodies die.
Saying that there is no such thing as a spirit is saying that there is no such thing as life. The spirit is what is alive. The spirit is life. The master Spirit is the giver of life, IOW, all the spirits come from somewhere, they don't just pop up from no where. Life doesn't come from death. The spirits come from the Spirit. Life comes from life. God is life, life is a piece of God. Anything that is alive has the presence of God in it... when the spirit leaves, it dies. Be it an animal, grass, a micro organism, whatever. The quality of being alive comes from the presence of life/spirit. When life leaves, it dies. When people say to me that they don't believe in God, I usually ask them if they believe they are breathing... because what they are saying is that they don't believe anything is alive, they don't believe in Life... it is a self contradicting statement because they have to be alive in order to not believe in life.
There's a difference between things that are alive and things that are dead. Look at someone that just died; all the biology is still there, all the ingredients of life are still there, that was part of a living human being, the day before, but now the same person is dead. What changed?
the spirit left the body. period. that is death.
Living things come from living things. Life never comes from death. Even the resurrection is life coming from life. God is life. The definition of God is "the giver of life" or source of life.
There may be life on other planets, but that life didn't spring up from the dead rocks, unless the spirit of life came to that planet and raised it up.
DNA can be alive and reproducing, or it can be dead. (that's why it is idiotic to refuse to allow scientists to work with dead DNA) Dead DNA isn't alive, is it? DNA without God, might as well be rocks. Life comes from the spirit, without life, all you have is death.
God is life. Questioning the existence of existence is self contradicting. There has to be existence for you to question it in the first place. God is existence... that's a definition, people. That's what I am that I am means.
Creationists are the most misunderstood of all people; the biggest reason being, they mostly misunderstand their own position. Rather than try to prove that life points to Biblical text, why not simple believe the Bible and not bother proving anything? It is total folly for the infidel to say he has proven that God does not exist. Why partake in that argument? You say that dinosaurs existed 160 million years ago? First, show me where you have certain understanding of something 160,000 years ago. The truth is man only has documents that date back 5000 years at the most; after that it is all speculation and theory. There is no higher education, higher understanding, rather, our scientific community has developed a culture of higher musing. Accepting those musings as anything that merits scientific argument is fool hearty and launches one into the world of their amusements, a place of ridicule and snobbery that pretends to hold the perch of higher learning.
Consider the Lilly and moth debate of Madagascar. Darwin rightly and boldly launched the idea that somewhere in their environment, must exist a moth with a minimum 12 inch sucker that could reach the nectar buried deep inside that Lilly. The simplistic mind set of evolutionists is that the genesis of this specialized species happens magically in response to the environment, which also appeared magically on its own. Both the appearing of this incredibly engineered Lilly and the matching moth design that could not have any other use in nature are living proof of intelligent design. But rather than face this, the evolutionists immediately submerge into argument and ridicule; thinking this refusal to face facts is somehow representative of higher learning. Since the species, by itself, cannot intelligently shape its own development; the bottom line in evolutionists' argument is to credit intelligent design to "nature". How much higher is this viewpoint than that of Creationists? In a nutshell, the evolutionist has taken the accomplishments of God and credited them to his created works; claiming that the earth is mysteriously self engineering and possesses the attributes of a divine hand in and of itself; which then proves that such a divine hand doesn't exist in heaven. In short, the evidence of God's hand at work in his handiwork is taken as an attribute of the handiwork and the conclusion is that the hand exists only in nature and the connection with heaven is severed.
The evolutionists prove themselves to be hopelessly fighting God with God's own witnesses. They resurrect the engineering in nature as a self-contained attribute. But in so doing they confess that intelligent design and ongoing engineering exists. Well, it is so obvious, and besides, it is tough to call Einstein a fool with no understanding. The problem with their argument is the old dilemma of denying that God exists while acknowledging his testimony. If nature somehow was imbued with intelligent design and an ongoing ability to self engineer her species; we have come full circle to the altar of the unknown god. We have the report of God's hand at work, we simply deny it is God's hand, yet we embrace the work. So what is this mysterious work? Well, it is nature. And what is this mysterious god that you label "nature"? Well, it is the same old God of creation: but this time we don't want to confess him... so we bundle up intelligent design and ongoing engineering and we label the same old handwork of Genesis as "nature". Having stolen the Master's skill set, we now deny his existence and then we rear the altar of the unknown god; all our specials on TV and our published works of higher education.
When evolution can perform such complicated tasks as building deoxyribonucleic acid, which is so bloody complicated, I mean c'mon people, just the strand itself has astronomical length, and then it reproduces!... any way when evolution can take simple elements and produce DNA molecules, then there's something intelligent at work there. Intelligent design is just a phrase to get the idea into dead heads that evolution is way too amazing in and of itself to happen without the presence of God. But even at that, DNA can be dead, so even if the elements all came together by chance, which has the same probability as finding a working Cadillac spit out of a volcano, but let's go there, let's assemble the DNA strand purely by chance, that's already intelligent design, isn't it? And still, that still doesn't make the DNA alive, does it? Dead DNA doesn't reproduce. So, just assembling the elements doesn't give you life.
Dead DNA isn't alive, is it? That double helix of amino acids is not built out of stone, it is a product of life, not the producer of life.
Cosmologists assume that life just pops up where the elements and conditions permit it. But now think about this... sperm dies. Can you produce a baby in the lab from dead sperm? If life automatically pops up when the elements and conditions are present; why can't you produce a baby from dead sperm?
Life is the presence of the spirit. God is a spirit. gods are spirits. We are spirits. While our spirits are present in our bodies, our bodies are alive. When our spirits leave our bodies, our bodies die.
Saying that there is no such thing as a spirit is saying that there is no such thing as life. The spirit is what is alive. The spirit is life. The master Spirit is the giver of life, IOW, all the spirits come from somewhere, they don't just pop up from no where. Life doesn't come from death. The spirits come from the Spirit. Life comes from life. God is life, life is a piece of God. Anything that is alive has the presence of God in it... when the spirit leaves, it dies. Be it an animal, grass, a micro organism, whatever. The quality of being alive comes from the presence of life/spirit. When life leaves, it dies. When people say to me that they don't believe in God, I usually ask them if they believe they are breathing... because what they are saying is that they don't believe anything is alive, they don't believe in Life... it is a self contradicting statement because they have to be alive in order to not believe in life.
There's a difference between things that are alive and things that are dead. Look at someone that just died; all the biology is still there, all the ingredients of life are still there, that was part of a living human being, the day before, but now the same person is dead. What changed?
the spirit left the body. period. that is death.
Living things come from living things. Life never comes from death. Even the resurrection is life coming from life. God is life. The definition of God is "the giver of life" or source of life.
There may be life on other planets, but that life didn't spring up from the dead rocks, unless the spirit of life came to that planet and raised it up.
DNA can be alive and reproducing, or it can be dead. (that's why it is idiotic to refuse to allow scientists to work with dead DNA) Dead DNA isn't alive, is it? DNA without God, might as well be rocks. Life comes from the spirit, without life, all you have is death.
God is life. Questioning the existence of existence is self contradicting. There has to be existence for you to question it in the first place. God is existence... that's a definition, people. That's what I am that I am means.
