Start At The Beginning

Genesis 1
1:1 In the beginning G-d created the

heavens and the earth.


Scripture starts at the beginning. The
so called science of evolution, does not.
From my perspective, this is the greatest
flaw in the theory of evolution. There is
no beginning.


To put it another way, scripture says
everything was created by our Creator.
Evolution says that everything came from
nothing.


I can't be the only one who finds that to
be a strangely unscientific assumption.
The evolutionist invokes the principle that
there are no 'miraculous' causes. Then,
turns right around and invokes the
miraculous -- everything came from nothing.
To add insult, they then say, this is
scientific. Hogwash!


Genesis 1:1 is absolutely brilliant as an
introductory statement of an account of
earth history. It starts at the beginning
and states that there is a cause for the
universe -- not magic. As an evolutionist,
you may not want the cause identified,
since it interferes with the doctrine of
materialism. And in this doctrine, is
another way of saying that we want an
eternal self-existent universe, because
we don't want any Creator G-d in the
picture. At least not the Creator of the
ancient hebrew text. The overall effect of
this approach is that it just substitutes
the god of evolution -- the eternal,
material universe -- for the Creator. The
universe created itself, therefore, it is
our god. Nothing new here. Look:


Rom 1:18 For the wrath of G-d is revealed

from heaven against all ungodliness and

unrighteousness of men, who hinder the

truth in unrighteousness,

19 because that which is known by G-d is

revealed in them, for G-d revealed it to

them.

20 For the invisible things of him since

the creation of the world are clearly seen,

being perceived through the things that are

made, even his everlasting power and

divinity; that they may be without excuse.

21 Because, knowing G-d, they didn`t

glorify him as G-d, neither gave thanks,

but became vain in their reasoning, and

their senseless heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they

became fools,

23 and traded the glory of the

incorruptible G-d for the likeness of an

image of corruptible man, and of birds, and

four-footed animals, and creeping things.

24 Therefore G-d also gave them up in the

lusts of their hearts to uncleanness, that

their bodies should be dishonored among

themselves,

25 who exchanged the truth of G-d for a

lie, and worshipped and served the creature

rather than the Creator, who is blessed

forever. Amen.


Paul the Apostle didn't waste his time
with sugar coated seeker sensitive prose.
Written about 2000 years ago, the apostle
Paul saw the ancient pagans in the Roman
Empire also had a thing about a Creator
G-d. They '...worshipped and served the
creature rather then the Creator...'v.25.
They preferred to serve the things created
rather then their Creator. Nothing new.
This is the modern doctrine of evolution,
that's been around for at least the most
unscientific past 2000 years.


Can you see there isn't, and never will
be a 'scientific' doctrine of origins? By
definition, it has to be a religious
affirmation of faith, because it can't be
scientifically proven. There is no way to
go back in time and prove what happened.
It doesn't matter how often you invoke the
term 'scientific' to describe it, it will
ALWAYS be religion.


Years ago, I was able to get a copy of a
tape by Walter Martin on The Existence of
G-d. It was helpful.


Maybe others find the discussion of Bishop
Ussher boring. I'm fascinated by the ideas
that come into play as soon as an attempt
is made to assign an age to the earth.
Modern science has made an effort to
generate some kind of result, whether you
agree or disagree. I disagree with the
conclusion that there are billions of years
in earth history, measured in absolute
time. There may be billions of years
apparent in the material that the earth is
made of, although I have not been able to
convince myself that radiometric dating
techniques are all that they are advertised
to be. Just say that I'm sceptical. I'm
not convinced that radioactive decay rates
provide the best geochronometer, but I
have to admit that I don't have a better
one.


It's at this point that the focus of the
situation begins to shift away from the
technique, toward the question of the
relativistic effects of the creation event.
Those effects need to be well understood
in order for radiometric dating to make any
sense. On the other hand, if making sense
is not the issue, then, nevermind. Forget
about it.


There is one other aspect that's
interesting. What about the end of time?
What happens when t=0? Einstein discovered
that E=mcc. c=meters/second. By
convention, when t=0, c is undefined. But
what happens at the end of time, when t=0?
I'd think that something unusual is going
to happen at that point. Is this it?

I Cor 15:51 Behold, I tell you a mystery.

We will not all sleep, but we will all be

changed,

52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye,

at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will

sound, and the dead will be raised

incorruptible, and we will be changed.


If you're on the Jesus Bus, you will enter
the parallel infinite universe where t=0,
time will end and eternity will begin.
I like to think that's what heaven will be.
It won't always be the same old, same old.
A change is coming.