According To The Scriptures
GodFrom almost the beginning of time, people have alleged or imagined the existence of other, and multiple gods. Eve was deceived with the promise that she and Adam would become "as gods." Regardless of the power or existence of other gods, there can only be one best of anything. The God who is best is the only one worthy of our attention or affection. That God has commanded that:
That God created all things, and His creation stands as proof of the existence and power of God. Notice the unique aspect of God's jealousy. All supposed, or false gods, willingly allow, and even encourage, the co-worship of other gods and goddesses. Can you imagine the creation of our universe being accomplished by a committee of gods and goddesses or by a board or coalition of gods? Equally absurd is any notion of evolution, that things just happened. Things do not just happen with positive results of such precision and upon such a scale as that of creation. The idea that such a balance as observed in nature could somehow develop from chance is contrary to all reasonable thinking. Just as ridiculous is the fantasy that God just kind of got the thing started with a spark, a bang, a germ, or whatever, and then let evolution kick in. That is only a doctrine borrowed from the ancient Babylonian sun worship. If God were able to cause such an unusual occurrence, was He not just as able to create the universe in the manner related in the Bible?
The World Book Encyclopedia (1985), under the heading "How the Earth Began" says, "There is no single, generally accepted scientific theory as to when or how the earth was formed." Of the nebular theory, proposed in 1755, the article says, "This theory assumes . . . ." Of another, proposed in 1905, the article says, "The planetismal theory assumes . . . ." Then there is the gaseous theory, proposed in 1919, of which the Encyclopedia says, "This theory assumes . . . ." It says that the English astronomer who proposed the double star theory, in the 1930's, "assumed . . . ," and of the condensation theories developed during the 1940's and 1950's, it says, "They assume . . . ." The article says, "Scientists do not know any more about the earth's earliest stages than they do about the birth of the solar system. They suppose . . . ." That is an awful lot of assuming and supposing. Doesn't sound very convincing, does it? All those theories assume and suppose the existence of certain conditions and circumstances with certain arrangements of heating and cooling of various concoctions of gas and dust, solid particles, gas and liquid, clouds of gas, explosions, etc. The Bible account of creation surely sounds far more reasonable, credible, authoratative, and sincere. The Bible account was apparently so believable and evident to the writer and readers that it was accepted as fact and in no need of proof.
The very size and shape of the earth, with its exact distance from the sun being the only position to allow it the right amount of heat and light, should be sufficient to testify to the existence of a very, very wise God.
If the world has evolved from such adverse and unnatural conditions as has been alleged, and life can adapt to any circumstance, why is pollution considered to be so great a threat?
If all (or any) living creatures have evolved from some one original lower form of life, which somehow came into being in some jungle, swamp, river, or mud-hole, why have men not been able to re-enact or produce a similar occurrence with laboratories, controlled conditions, and billions of dollars? If we can land men on the moon and bring them back, surely we could simulate something that happened by accident millions of years ago in a jungle! For the sake of argument, suppose that it could have happened. What are the chances that it would have happened twice, so that there would have been a mate? What are the chances that those two creatures could have been formed geographically close enough and within each others life span to have found one another? Or, if conveniently, reproduction at that time didn't require a mate, when, how, and why did the rules change? The theories of evolution depend not only upon the assumption that there was a very unusual occurrence at some point, which defies all laws of nature as we now know them, but requires the assumption of a chain of repeated occurrences of unusual and rule-changing circumstances and events of great magnitude. The supposed process of any thing evolving is totally opposite to the way things really are. Every thing runs down, cools off, gets old, wears out, falls apart, etc. Time gets used up, fire goes out, and sound dies. It is much easier for me to believe that about six thousand years ago, God simply created whatever forms of life He chose to create, and began immediately to propagate each species just as he does now.
Even though creation stands as proof and proclamation of much about the Creator, so much so that all are "without excuse" (Romans 1:20), God has communicated to us even greater knowledge and detail about Himself in His written Word, the Bible. I see many things written and said, supposedly about the same God, that are contradictory to the Bible. If we are to learn truth about God, it is essential that our learning come from a reliable source. If the Bible is really the words of God, then any notion contradictory to it must be rejected. The Bible teaches that God is an unchanging God. Many teach doctrines that either assume or imply that God continuously changes to keep up with man. Any change, for better or worse, would imply that there either was or now is imperfection. We have no need of an imperfect God.