Creation, And God - Sans Scripture
By Dan Kazarian
I present rationale - sans Scripture - for believing the Universe, Earth, and Man, were created by God, Who had purpose for bringing them all into existence.
By ‘God’, I mean a Person Who is: Omnipotent (has unlimited power to do what He wants with and to the Universe), Omniscient (has unlimited knowledge of all that exists or could exist in the Universe), and Omnipresent (can be present anywhere and everywhere in the Universe at any ‘time’ or ‘continuously’.
And by ‘Person’ I mean One Who is Rational, can Communicate, has Emotions, Desires, and a Will.
This is contrasted to thinking of ‘God’ being an abstract and impersonal force which is active in the Universe as a result of the Universe being what it is.
By ‘Scripture’ I mean the Bible, and by ‘sans Scripture’ I mean I am not using quotations from Scripture as the basis for a view. However, I do include some statements of my views of Scripture.
My circa 1958 Webster, defines apologetics as ‘the systematic argumentative discourse in defense, especially of the divine origin and authority of Christianity’.
If we consider things that support a Divine origin of the Universe, Life, and Man, and if we conclude the Universe, Life, and Man are not existences of chance evolvements, but the Creations of God, must we not consider God would also reveal Who He Is by His Written Revelation, and not be One Whom we determine exists or does not exist by what we allow Him to be, or even not be?
I trust if you have not previously believed His Revelation in the Universe, you will consider It. Accordingly, open your mind to the Universe exhibiting evidence of God having created It. Open your mind to the Universe itself being the superior Apologist, overwhelming all arguments we exist because of chance.
It is important to remember there is no ‘Scientific Evidence’ that compels Man to believe God Is, otherwise all Scientists would believe God Is.
Neither is there ‘Scientific Evidence’ that compels Man to believe God does not exist, otherwise all Scientists would believe there is no God.
This must remain a pivotal consideration for those who believe there is No God because they believe ‘Science’ proves God Is Not.
Believing God Is - is a necessary consequence of one’s worldview - one’s ‘religion’ - and believing God Is Not (there is No God) is as much a necessary consequence of one’s religion as believing God Is.Synopsis Of Views
Atheism is a religion! ‘No Religion’ is a religion!
Believing God Is, is then, a matter of faith, and believing God Is Not is also a matter of faith.
You can not have the ability to read and understand what you are now reading and not practice your ‘Religion’ in your daily course of life.
There are numerous views regarding the beginning of the Universe, with many variations. We may place almost all who hold them into two general groupings, ‘Creationists’ and ‘Naturalists’.
All Creationists believe God always existed - God created the Universe - He brought It into existence from Nothing by His Power - He had purpose for creating it.
Existing before the Universe means God transcends the Universe, and He is not contained by the Universe, and He transcends Time - Time began with the beginning of the Universe.
Existing before the Universe also means God is not a product of the Universe.
Almost all Naturalists believe the Universe is billions of years old. Most Naturalists believe the Universe came into existence without God, and God does not exist. Some believe if He does exist He did not create the Universe.
Hence, Naturalists believe the Universe auto-created itself, so there is no intelligence, purpose, or design involved in its creation, or its existence.
And all Naturalists believe Life and Man were not created, but evolved by natural processes over billions and millions of years.
Some Naturalists believe God may exist, and if He was involved with creating the Universe, He started the process, but remained inactive thereafter, so Life developed by natural processes.
Hence, Naturalists believe life ascended from ‘ethereal soup’ over billions of years.
Inescapably, this leads to an absolute deduction that the organic (life) developed - evolved - from the inorganic (material - without life).
Some Creationists hold a corollary view - God created the beginning of the Universe, and remained active employing natural processes to create Life and Man.
Some Creationists believe Life on Earth is only a few thousand years old. Others Creationists believe Life on Earth is hundreds of millions of years old (or billions of years old - what difference does it make?), but Man is only a few thousand years old.
Some Creationists believe God created the Earth, Sun and Moon, and Stars, and Man, all in a ‘time’ span of six days - six 24-hour days as we measure days. Others believe God took billions of years. Almost all Six-Day Creationists believe the Universe is ‘young’, that is, it was created not more than 25 thousand years ago. And there are views falling within these extremes.
There are also cross-mixes of these views.
During the latter years of the previous century most Cosmologists, both Creationists and Naturalists, converged to establishing the beginning of the Universe as the ‘Big Bang’, and its occurrence as long as 20 billion years ago, or so, and as recent as 14 billion years ago. Creationists believe God caused the BB - Naturalists believe the BB was a chance event.
That is, most Cosmologists agree there was Nothing prior to the Big Bang, and Time commenced with the Big Bang, and because of the Big Bang the Universe is finite in size.
The significance is all previous theories of the Universe presuming an infinite Universe that always existed are no longer credible.
Not all Creationists nor all Naturalists are Big Bangists. The Naturalists who reject the BB insist the Universe is of infinite age and infinite extent. The Six-Day Creationists reject the BB for two reasons: it implies energy produced itself - came into existence without God creating it - and current BB theories preclude a young Universe, particularly a young Earth.
As an aside, if anything did exist prior to the BB, it did not affect what happened after the BB, nor can we conclude anything about the Universe prior to the BB. Hence, Nothing existed prior to the BB.
And some people find no inner psychic conflict holding two opposing worldviews - believing God created Man - and also believing Man evolved, Naturalistically. The majority of those believing so hold their Creationist view because of their religious beliefs and also accept the Naturalistic view because of their deference to ‘Science’.
And of course, some people do not have a conviction of any particular view.
My Creationist View
I am a Creationist. I believe God created the Universe, Life, and Man - actively and purposefully, Man did not evolve from primordial soup, nor evolve from lower order species, and God continues to remain active in the life of Man. Although being a Creationist is consistent with my Faith, I do not blindly accept the Creationist view because of my Faith. It makes sense to me separate from my Faith - and I do not have to force it to make sense.
We crave for explanations of the mechanisms of how God may have created the Universe and Life.
I find the BB to be the most acceptable explanation that is currently understood by Man for the Creation of the Material Universe. However, I accept it only with modifications - primarily, the energy of the BB was the result of God’s Creative Act, as well as the generation of Matter.
With respect to Life, I believe God created the first of all Living Beings - Life did not evolve from inferior to superior. With respect to animal and plant life, I believe God created many First Beings.
With respect to Man I believe God created only our First Parents.
I find no acceptable explanation of a process whereby Life would come into existence without God’s direct Act of Creation.
It is also important to remember all views of Creation are not Six-Day views. Unfortunately, the historic challenges presumed six 24-hour days as we know days - and this has led many to reject all Creation views.
Whether you are a Naturalist, or a Creationist, please do not construe the contents herein regarding Creation to presuming a restricted Six-Day Creation, and therefore read no further.
Likewise, if you insist on a literal Six-Day duration for the total Creation Process, along with the Universe and the Earth being ‘young’, let me state simply: Since our knowledge of Time is incomplete, entertaining an explanation of a Creation Process incorporating billions of years, in no way diminishes my belief that God is The Creator - He Created the Material Universe by the Power Of His Word - Nothing Material existed prior to His Creating Act.
Because of our incomplete understanding of Time, the BB view and the Six-Day view may be more compatible than we think they are. See ‘Time’, below.
I think it is more important for Creationists to ally in presenting substantive challenges to Naturalists than to champion the detailed mechanics and methods of Creation between themselves.
Accordingly, as a Creationist, I try to provide some sans Scriptural considerations supporting a Creationist view. You may find them unjustified - totally unallowable with your worldview. But please, do not dismiss them without pondering them.
I do not want to diminish Faith is necessary to believe in God, and believe the totality of Scripture. And I am not trying to provide a substitute for Faith to convince you to change your view.
But I do hope you will allow the possibility that what Scripture teaches may have reality and be willing to open your ‘heart’ (psyche - mind) to God’s Operation, if God Is.
Seeing Scriptural statements regarding the Physical are supported by sans Scriptural conclusions, confirms (for me) the Scriptures are reliable. This, in turn, confirms the Scriptural statements related to the non-Physical - the Spiritual - are also true!
Accordingly, the contents herein present and propose some considerations for both Naturalists and Creationists.Responsibility And Truth
Although we may wish to study all possible views and be able to come to a final conclusion regarding the Birth of the Universe, and particularly the Birth of our Earth and Life on it, it becomes an unbounded task with our limited life spans and limited mental capabilities. We are not responsible to know the collective knowledge of all Science in order to come to a conclusion of what ‘Science’ believes. Even if we could, Science has opposing views, not only between the various disciplines of Science, but within the disciplines, themselves.
What we believe is determined by what we are aware of, and the knowledge we have gleaned throughout our lives.
We are responsible to come to conclusions based upon what we believe is true. Hence, our quest is to sort Truth from all that we encounter.
A member of a jury comes to a conclusion, not because he is an expert in law, but because he considers the claims placed before him, and separates what he has been convinced to be true from that which is not, and what leads to justice from that which does not.
He does not blindly accept all that is presented as unchallengeable fact. He uses Common Sense to come to a verdict.
It is the responsibility of both the prosecution and the defense to present their claims so as to be understood by the jury members.
In like manner, we must use Common Sense to evaluate the Truthfulness of what is presented to us regarding the Birth of our Universe, Life, and Man on Earth.
Common Sense is basic fundamental rationale that allows us to form an opinion or conclusion regarding Truth.
Common Sense is not an uneducated sense. However, Common Sense does not need to be cloaked with esoteric proficiency, and when allowed will unveil all esoteristc cloaks of dissuasion and converge to Truth.
In no way am I belittling the mastering of esoteric disciplines.
However, it is the responsibility of those qualified esoterically to present their knowledge in terms that are understandable in the Court of Common Sense - by Common Sense Jurists.Science Versus Science
Those who believe the Universe came into existence without the intentional and purposeful action of a Creator, do so because they have evaluated explanations - theories - that make sense to them, and accepted them as satisfactory Truth. However, they do not all agree on a single explanation.
Most of this Truth is purportedly given the sanction of ‘Science’. A characteristic of Science has always been verification based upon observation, measurement, and repeatability. Scientific ‘theory’ has been the fuel to drive scientific exploration, but theory has always remained theory until undisputed verification has been accomplished.
However, in the area of Naturalistic Evolvement, what has not been observed, nor measured, nor repeated, has been decreed as unchallengeable theory - Fact - that must be accepted as Truth.
A ‘Fundamental Fact’ of Naturalism is there is no God, and there was no causal intelligence, plan, or purpose, involved in the Birth of the Universe.
Another Fundamental Fact of Naturalism is all Life rose from non-living matter.
Likewise, those who believe the Universe and Life were Created, do not all accept the same explanations (descriptions) of transitional evolvements. They also use the knowledge of Science to formulate theories to explain what happened to describe the process of going from Nothing to Something. Their minds must have an acceptable explanation, also.
Because Creationists believe God transcends the Universe and is ‘Infinite’ in His Being, He and His Attributes can not be completely understood by Man. Hence Man can only speculate the means whereby God created the Universe. Accordingly, any theory of the mechanism of Creation can be, at best, a satisfactory explanation within the limitations of our knowledge and understanding.
Hence, Creationists do not insist their theories that are unverified are ‘proven’ theories - but ask they be given due consideration by Naturalists.
To do so, the Naturalist must violate his own Fundamental Facts.
Hence, we have the contentions of Science versus Science.
As an aside, for those of you who are sincere atheists or skeptics, are you willing to scrutinize the foundations of what you believe to determine what has been proven vs what has been presumed?Religion Versus Religion
That you accept some of your basic tenets by faith?
By their very natures, the Creationist views presume a Creator - God. By their very natures the Naturalist views do not allow a Creator, that is, God actively creating and administering the Universe.
Naturalists say we must keep religion and God out of ‘Science’. Naturalists say we can not observe God, can not measure parameters that describe God, can not have physical experiments that encounter God - therefore God can not be a Subject of Scientific exploration - God can not be a part of Science.
And since God cannot be a part of Science, Naturalists insist no legitimate ‘scientific’ explanation can support His existence, or allow a premise of He being The Creator, and therefore being The Cause of the Universe.
They further insist evaluations and assignments of credence to theories presuming the existence and involvement of God in Creation are not allowable. Even Naturalists who may believe an uninvolved God may exist, ascribe to this.
The Atheistic Naturalists, who probably dominate the Naturalists, go further. They insist since there is no God, any scientist who believes there is a God - or an Intelligent, Purposeful Creator - is esoterically deficient in ‘Science’, and accordingly is not qualified to make Scientific conclusions regarding the Birth of the Universe.
Hence, the Atheist imposes his ‘Religion of no God’ upon all - all views which may otherwise have credence - and all whom he would otherwise recognize as being Scientific explainers.
And, accordingly, Atheistic Naturalism ascends to being the religion of Atheistic Naturalists, which they practice with as much ‘narrow minded’ zeal as the Christians, or others, they accuse of doing so.
The polar extreme is the ‘six-days‘ view of Creation held by those who interpret ‘day’ in the Genesis account literally as being a 24-hour day.
This view is seen as being ‘narrow minded’ by both Creationists and Naturalists who believe measurements, such as background radiation and expansion rates of the Universe, substantiate an age for the Universe of billions of years.
Hence we have contentions of Religion versus Religion.
As an aside, for those of you who are sincere atheists or skeptics, if there was a God whose existence you would acknowledge, would you really want Him to be One who was physically observable?Religion Versus Science
One who would be limited by the physical? One who did not transcend His Creation?
Is this not tantamount to allowing a God who is an ‘Idol’?
Cosmology models have been developed progressively over hundreds of years.
Around 340 BC Aristotle formalized a Cosmology model having a distant sphere around the Earth, with the Sun, Moon, all of the stars and the planets moving in circular orbits around the Earth and on the sphere. The Earth was the center of the Universe.
Then in the Second Century, Ptomley refined the Aristotle model to one having concentric Earth centered spheres of different sizes, with the Moon, Sun, the five planets known at that time, and the stars moving along circles on their own respective spheres. All of the stars were in the outer sphere. This was to account for the observed anomalies with the Aristotle model.
Shortly after, the Roman Church confirmed the Ptomley model as being in accordance with Scripture.
The Ptomley model remained unchallenged until around 1514 when Copernicus proposed a Sun centered cosmology, with the Sun as the center of our Universe.
This commenced the Cosmology disputes between ‘Religion’ and ‘Science’.
As time progressed, some Theologians started reinterpreting Scriptures to be compatible with what ‘Science’ was claiming. They spiritualized and mythified what had been interpreted previously as actual occurrences. Others looked at the Scriptures to see if there were legitimate alternate meanings of words the original Scriptures employed, which would reconcile Science with what Scripture declared. And still others denounced Science, and made no attempt to merge the rationalities of Science and Religion.
Eventually there were two major camps. One was Science is Truth and hence must superintend Theology when Theology conflicts with Science - Theology must be subordinate to Science. The other was the opposite. Theology is Truth and must superintend Science - Science must be subordinate to Theology.
Should Science superintend Theology or should Theology superintend Science?
Hence we have the contentions of Religion versus Science.
As an aside, for those of you who are sincere atheists or skeptics, are you willing to devote half as much of your energies to try to resolve your scientific objections to the existence of God, as you do to support His non-existence?Anthropic Principle
Are you willing to open your mind to considering Creationist views?
The Anthropic Principle necessities the parameters of the Universe to be what they are, in order for Life to exist on Earth, and for Humanity to be as we are. The question then, is: Were these parameters determined and effected by God, or were they the result of random chance?
There are a number of theories of how these parameters may have been produced without the superintendence and control of God. However, these theories are currently without foundation - by that I mean they can not be verified by scientific measurements - they are at this time speculations. Those proposing them agree they can not be verified with our current resources and technology, and they may never be verified.
Recommended Cosmology Reading
I think it is important for all Creationists, especially Six-Day Creationists, to be knowledgable about current Scientific thinking regarding cosmology. My knowledge in this area had remained unfed for many years, until I read: A Short History Of Time, by Stephen W. Hawking, published by Bantam Books, 1988. Every serious supporter of Creation contending Naturalism should be familiar with Hawking.
I found many solutions to how God could have done what He did. It did not contribute to any doubting of what God did.
My normal preference is to not quote from references, other than Scripture as in my other topics. I try to state principles I see, and let you pursue your own justifications for agreeing or disagreeing, rather than recommending or citing an authority. However, in this case, I find it significant that Hawking states in his chapter, ‘The Origin And Fate Of The Universe’, on Page 127:
It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as an act of God who intended to create beings like us.
However Hawking continues to address various theories which, if they could be verified, would account for a Naturalistic Evolvement of our Universe and Life, which avoid the BB. He concludes his chapter with the following:
The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people come to believe God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started - it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we should suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really self contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither a beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?Time
I also think it is important for all of us, whether we believe in God or not, to consider our incomplete knowledge of ‘Time’. Since Time is relative, the measurement of elapsed Time between events depends upon where we are in the Universe. Furthermore, since Time commenced with the BB, and is real, although not physical, must it not also have a substance that is not physical? And if so, could it not also have been ‘accelerated’ during the BB, and during the Creation Process?
We do not have a comprehensive understanding of Time or its history. Hence, the views of Six-Day Creationists and the views of Big Bangists may not only be compatible, but be equivalent, being viewed differently because of our centers of observation.
Evidence Of A God-Creator?
Intelligent Design In Our Universe
Can we see anything that demonstrates the existence and involvement of a God-Creator? If God did create the Universe, would we not see evidences of His involvement?
The intelligence of a person is manifested in the design of what he produces.
If we look at a bridge, we conclude it was designed and produced in accordance with a design. It is not the result of tossing a random pile of steel beams and having them assemble themselves into a bridge because of natural behavior tendencies of steel.
A basic tenet of Naturalism is there is no intelligence or purpose involved in the Birth of our Universe or our Earth.
Consequently, if intelligence and purpose was involved, it would have to be God’s intelligence and God’s purpose.
For many recent years, the topic of ‘Intelligent Design’ has drawn the ire of convinced Naturalists. They see ID as an intrusion of disguised ‘Religion’, but do not see their own convictions as their ‘Religion’, which they wish to impose on others.
Can we look at the physical characteristics of our Universe and our Earth and see design - or are we going to insist it’s nothing more than chance manifesting what we observe?
And if we see design, will we be willing to acknowledge from whence came the intelligence to design? And that there is Purpose?
Let us look at only a very few of the physical characteristics of our Universe and our Earth.
Earth - Sun - Moon Parameters
Life on earth is integrated and intertwined. Life for plants and animals is co-dependent. Neither can exist without the other, and they are both dependent upon the atmosphere. The total life system is dependent on the finely ‘tuned’ earth - sun - moon orbital parameters.
If the earth was 10 percent closer to the sun it would be so hot all life would be cooked to death. If it was 10 percent farther, all life would be frozen to death. If either if these had been initial conditions, life would be non-existent.
If there was no Moon, the oceans would have no tides, no waves, and life in the seas would be ‘salted’ to death. And if the Earth’s axis was not inclined, there would be no seasons. There would be no winds. If there were no winds there would be no transporting of clouds carrying water vapor, and there would be no precipitation upon the continents - no rain - no snow - and hence, no vegetation, no life.
If any one of these parameters was different from what it is - I would not be writing this and you would not be reading it.
In addition to the above parameters, there are nearly 100, or so, parameters in the collective mathematical descriptors (laws) of the behavior and characteristics of the Universe.
If any of these parameters was slightly different - by more than one percent, or so - from what it is our Earth would not be what it is,
Nor would life be possible anywhere in the Universe, and the state of the Universe would be total chaos, if anything at all.
What is the probability of 100 parameters being what they are by chance? Let us take a simplistic approach to try to understand what it is we are trying to grasp. Let us say any parameter may have two conditions, will be either suitable or will not be suitable, for Life to exist in the Universe.
The total number of possible outcomes for all mixes of 100 parameters will be stupendously monstrous, more than 1 trillion times itself 3 times. This number is 1,000 followed by 11 commas with three zeros after each comma.
And the probability for all of these parameters being suitable by chance alone is 1 out of this stupendously monstrous number!
You may be able to conclude otherwise, but I have to conclude these parameters were specified by The Designer, Who also had Power to ‘make’ what He designed.
If you are not familiar with the fundamentals of probability, see ‘Probability And Biblical Believability - Sans Scripture’ for how this number is determined.
Furthermore, since these parameters are correct for life on Earth, they can not be the correct set to sustain life as we know it for any other planet in the Universe, since there can be no other planet for which these parameters are the same as for Earth.
For many, many years we have ‘listened’ for extraterrestrial information, hoping to receive evidence of intelligent life. For many, many years we have ‘sent’ information into the Heavens, for the one purpose of hoping it will be received by intelligent life. For a fewer number of years we have had at least one ‘payload’ transmitting from space into space ‘information’ with the hope this information will be received by an intelligent receiver.
We all agree information is evidence of intelligence! We all agree information can not be generated by chance! We all agree if we receive extraterrestrial information, it is because it was sent by an intelligent agent! We all agree if the information we send is receive it will be received by an intelligent agent! We all agree if there is information, there is an intelligent agent who produced it!
Why is it so difficult for a Naturalist to see the Intelligence imbedded in the Universe to be evidence of The Agent Who Generated It??!!
Evidence Of A God-Creator?
Intelligent Design In Life
Can we see anything that demonstrates the existence and involvement of a God-Creator in Life? If God did create Life, would we not see evidences of His involvement? We will consider only two areas: the information in living cells, and sexuality.
How did the DNA that controls the development of our complex physical bodies develop itself?
Information comes from intelligence - and intelligence must exist to produce information and record it.
The pages in a book do not produce the information printed on them. The information available on the INet is not produced by the INet itself.
The simplest cell contains the equivalent of trillions of bits of coded information.
I’m not saying the genetic information in a cell is in binary form, that is stored as zeros and ones, but only saying the same amount of information, if stored in binary form would be equivalent to trillions of bits.
‘Trillions of bits’ is difficult to comprehend as a number. However, if the trillions of bits were converted to a character set and published as a set of books, how many would there be?
Let us presume a simple 0 and 1 character set. With 100 characters per line, and 50 lines per page, we would have 5,000 characters per page. If we presume 1,000 pages per book, the conversion of 1 trillion bits would produce 200,000 books!
Accordingly, how did the information in the cells that program their growth ‘develop’ itself and ‘install’ itself, if it was self-originating? How did the information in the DNA molecule get stored?
How did the DNA that controls the development of our complex physical bodies developed itself?
You may be able to conclude otherwise, but I have to conclude the molecular information in biological cellular structures was installed by the External Intelligence Who ‘wrote’ it.
Furthermore, it is known the DNA is ‘instructed’ by the RNA to build its chain. The DNA can not ‘reproduce’ without its own RNA.
If we believe the DNA evolved naturally, we must also believe an RNA co-developed naturally. If there was one bit of ‘misinformation’ in the RNA the DNA would fail to replicate - reproduce - correctly.
Take the probabilities associated with the DNA and multiply them by associated probabilities for its RNA, and that will be the minimum probability required for the development of cells naturalistically.
That probability would be mega-monstorous and larger than the number of atoms estimated to be in the Universe!
And furthermore, it is known the DNA requires proteins to replicate, and also ‘builds’ proteins. There are over 200 different proteins, and the correct ones must be available, and the correct ones are built.
Hence, any evolutionary theory would have to explain the joint evolution of the RNA and proteins, not individually, but collectively, and not partially, but completely. That is, from prior to the DNA, and in only one incremental evolutionary change (development step) - not over billions or millions of years, to complete DNAs, complete RNAs, and complete proteins, and the system for propagation.
I find, for me, no acceptable explanation of a process whereby cells would develop and reproduce without God’s direct Act of designing them to do so and causing them to do so.
Note the number for the total possible outcomes for the 100 parameters of the Universe, discussed above, is 1 trillion times itself three times. How many volumes will be required if this stupendously monstorous number of different possiblle combiations is published as a sequence of bits?
Sexuality - Male And Female
If Life was produced by Naturalistic Evolvement, why do we have the sexes?
Why did not the animals evolve as mono-sexual beings?
And even more so, why do we have only two sexes? Why are there not animals that require three sexes to reproduce, or four, or even more?
At what point of evolving did the ‘living’ decide to have sexes?
Why do we have the sexual differences between a man and a woman? The emotional differences? The physical differences? The reproductive differences? The differences of the brains?
Why does it require a male and a female to produce the next offspring?
Consider the invertebrate commonly known as the ‘jellyfish’. The male squirts his sperm into the ocean water - which is salty - and the sperm ‘swims’ and is captured by the female to fertilize her ‘eggs’ to produce their progeny.
How did this complex mechanism evolve from whatever it was, which had to be lower order and simpler to be evolutionary?
Did the ancestors of the jellyfish rationalize a more fitting method of reproduction to ultimately survive their own destruction if they had not?
I will leave it to you to ponder the ‘sexual’ aspects of ‘intelligent’ life - for animal life, for fish and sea life, bird and foul life, for insect life, and ‘non-intelligent’ life - for land and sea plants, et cetera.
It seems to me the believing of any explanation (theory) for the Naturalistic Evolvement of sexuality requires an infinitely greater exercising of a blind, superstitious, existential leap of ‘faith’ than any cognitive submission to ‘Faith in God’ - believing God Is God - God Is The Creator.Observing Nature
Recently my wife and I enjoyed our first cruise. We went up the Inland Passage along Alaska, up into Glacier Bay. In addition to the beauty we saw, we learned from the ship’s lecturer some things we were not aware of, and also were given a new insight into Animal ‘life styles’. We visited museums at each of the dockings. The Alaska State Museum in Juneau was the largest, and offered excellent exhibits of Alaskan development and Alaskan Natural History. The other museums were in Skagway and Ketchikan.
I present the following as examples of how even with limited observations, we are confronted with having to interpret what Nature declares - the apologetics of Nature.
I have intentionally limited most of the contents below to my ponderings of what I learned or what refreshed my mind as a result of our cruise and the visits to the museums mentioned above.
My knowledge in biology is grossly lacking, so forgive my deficiencies to employ correct biological nomenclature. You will know what it is I’m trying to say.
I am indebted to a friend, who chooses to remain unnamed, for his suggestions and his contributions, which form most of the following, regarding Sea Animals. He is a ‘whale watcher’, committedly involved in monitoring the whales off our local Pacific Coast during their migrations. As an aside, he holds the Naturalistic Views regarding Creation.
We will long remember seeing the whales, dolphins (which we think we saw), sea lions, seals and other marine animals, during our cruising and in the harbors where we docked.
On our cruise we saw more Humpback Whales (Megaptera novaengliae) than others. Humpbacks breach with a great lunge out of the water, turning on their side or back and causing a tremendous splash when falling back into the ocean. Raising the tail or front fins out of the water and bringing them down also produces a splash that may indicate joy or be a threat to other male whales nearby. This whale is vocal and its ‘song’ can be heard for miles in some cases.
Humpbacks, as well as other whales, frequently cooperate in capturing food (other sea life) by circling as a group below their prey, usually fish, and driving the fish toward the surface and as a group come up with open mouths to take in fish and water. The water is expelled through their partially opened mouth and the prey is then swallowed.
Pregnant whales dominate, and the other whales cooperate to provide them more food. Pregnant whales are given a preferential positions by being circled by the other whales, and because as they surface the fish above them are driven to the center, there will be more food for the pregnant whales.
The Humpback is baleen - has up to 800 baleen plates in its mouth. These plates end in bristles, and filter the edibles, sea organisms, krill, shrimp, and fish, to stay in the mouth when the whale expels up to 150 gallons it has mouthed.
Humpbacks feed heavily in the Summer and store enough fat to last the rest of the year. Humpbacks grow to about 50 feet in length.
Although we did not see any, there are other baleen whales frequently seen in the Northern Pacific. One is the Pacific Gray Whale (Eschrichitis robustus). Grays are slightly smaller than Humpbacks, growing to about forty feet. Gray whales do not compete with Humpbacks for food as they are bottom feeders, taking mouths full of sand and mud and straining the water to remove any animals living in the mud.
Another is the Great Blue Whale, (Balaenoptera musculus) which is the largest of all whales and habitats the Oceans of the World. A large Great Blue may be twice the size and weight of a large Humpback, weighing as much as 140 tons, and be over 100 feet in length. Great Blue whales feed on some of the smallest sea organisms called ‘krill’ which are shrimp-like organisms and swim together in large masses.
Another whale we saw in the Alaskan waters was the Orca (Orcinus orca). Orcas are also known as Killer Whales. Although Humpbacks and Orcas habitat the same seas, they travel in their own separate schools, and have distinctly different characteristics. The Orca is easily identified by its predominant tall dorsal fin which may extend four feet above its back. Other body characteristics are different, as well as their skin patterns. The Orcas also have easily recognizable black bodies with white markings.
Orcas are in the group of whales that have teeth instead of baleen. Two types of Orca have been designated by marine biologist: (1) fish eaters and (2) predators on sea lions, seals, porpoises, sharks, baby whales and even adult whales. An attacks on a Great Blue Whale often ends in the death of the larger Great Blue. The Orca has no natural enemy.
Sperm Whales (Phyeter macrocephalus) also belong to the toothed whale group and are common in the Arctic waters. We did not see any Sperm.
Dolphins are included in the group of toothed whales. They are seldom over ten feet in length and are mostly fish eating. Several kinds of Dolphins can be seen in the Arctic waters. One of the most common is the White-Sided Dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens) swimming in pods of a few to over a hundred. Although Dolphins had been spotted ahead of us by the Captain and the ship’s lecturer, by the time we got to where they were they were so far off I could not clearly discern their splashing from the rolling of the waves. We were on the stern - had we been on the bow I may have seen them.
Whales are air-breathing and warm-blooded as contrasted with fish and other sea (marine) life.
Whales (in the Northern Hemisphere) migrate to the South. Some whales migrate on a yearly cycle, others migrate on a two-year cycle. They bear their calves in the South and then return North.
Orcas fall in two migratory categories. Some are ‘resident’ - don’t migrate - while others are ‘transient’ - do migrate.
Whales also cooperate to protect their young, by ‘encircling’ them, to ward off Tiger sharks that would otherwise attack the whale calves.
Additional groups of sea mammals can be observed in the Arctic waters - Seals, Sea Lions, and Sea Otters. They share similar habitats of coast lines and shores, but maintain their separateness and body distinctions and characteristics. Those we saw in this group were on the coasts our ship was near and on the rocks of the harbors where we docked.
Seals and Sea Lions are some what similar in appearance. They move rapidly through the water, feeding primarily on fish.
Marine biologists have designated 33 species of Seals, which includes the haired and the hairless forms. They do not interbreed even though they may feed and sun themselves in the same areas. Seven different species of sea lions have been identified in Pacific Ocean waters. Generally, Seals and Sea Lions can be identified by observing the hind flippers. Seals cannot use their hind fins for propulsion on land but Sea Lions are more skillful and bring their hind flippers forward along side of their bodies and use them to push when climbing on rocks or traversing land. Seals move on land by ‘humping’ or throwing the front part of their body forward and dragging the rest of the body along.
Within the Seal group, there are distinctions and diversities in their skins and skin patterns. Some Seals are furred. Of the non-furred Seals, some are spotted - some are not. The spotted and unspotted Seals do not interbreed, and the furred Seals and non-unfurred Seals do not interbreed.
Sea Lions do not have fur.
How shall we interpret what these few Sea Animals ‘declare’?
Let us ask some questions of these Sea Animals and see what they declare!
Why are there distinct differences in these Sea Animals? Why do they not interbreed? What makes them differentiate?
Who taught them their ‘lifestyles’?
Is their migration because of memory, or is it because of ‘instinct’?. If instinct, how did they ‘learn’ to do something they had not been ‘taught’?
Consider all the other Sea Animals - fish, eels, squids, whatever. Take what you may know about them and ask questions.
What are your answers?
We did not see live Bears but we saw ‘stuffed’ Bears in the museums we visited. I have tried to restrict most of what is below to what I learned just on this trip, from the museum exhibits and available pamphlets.
Bears are intriguing subjects for our interpretation of Nature’s Declaration. Bears are the largest land animals of frigid climates. Bears fall into distinct catagories, with each habitating separate geographical domains - some are vast, some not so vast.
The most isolated from Man is the Polar Bear, different from all other bears with its white fur. It also has a different diet because of the food supply of polar regions.
Bears do not migrate to seek food when their supply becomes dormant during the ‘Winter’, but instead hibernate for periods of months during the ‘darkest’ part of the year.
How shall we interpret what Bears ‘declare’?
Why is the Polar bear white while the others are brown or black? And if we consider the Panda bear of the Orient, why does it have a distinct black and white pattern?
If bears evolved, why are they distinct in their characteristics? Why do they not interbreed? Why is there not one homogenous Bear group?
How do hibernating bears learn to ‘get fat’ and then not ‘wake up’ on an appropriate morning? Is it by being taught, that is, doing what Moma Bear and Poppa Bear do, or is it by instinct?
If it is by example how do cubs know how to decrease their metabolism? Did they attend meditation classes?
If it is by instinct, how did the information ‘in his instinct’ get programmed?
Consider all the other land animals of the world. Take what you know about them, and ask questions.
What are your answers?
Like the Bears, most of the Birds we saw with closeness we could study were stuffed ones in their ‘natural’ settings in ‘trees’ in which they nested. I include the Bird group since they have a lot to declare.
The greatest of variety and distinction is found in the Bird group. They range from the Humming, the tiniest, to the Eagle, the most huge. Their variety and distinction is manifested by their bodily shapes, bill shapes, color patterns, individual feather structures, and a host of other characteristics. Their nest constructions are unique, ranging to the largest structure, that of the Bald Eagle. We saw the Bald Eagles, and their nest at the Alaska State Museum in Juneau.
A bird is ‘alive’ - exercises its abilities - before it is hatched - or rather ‘hatches itself’. It exercises intelligence, muscle strength, and energy to break its encasement.
The lifestyles of birds are different. Some migrate.
What do Birds declare?
Similar to Sea and Land Animals, why are there distinct differences in Birds? Why do they not interbreed? What makes them differentiate?
Who taught them their unique nest designs and constructions?
How did they develop their lifestyle?
How does the chick that could not observe the sheltering of her own shell learn to shelter her eggs when she becomes a hen?
How did the chick learn to release himself?
Who told the first time migraters to remember their way so they could return to the land of their hatching?
Who taught the birds to fly in formation and alternate in the lead so no one would become more tired than the others and fail to keep up?
Who taught the one flying the lead position for the first time in its life of migration which direction to head.
How do they navigate their return over uncharted waters when their return is seasonally different from their departure? How do they fly for weeks without rest or food?
Are the answers to these questions memory and ‘training’? Or is there something that transcends memory - instinct?
If instinct, from whence is derived the variety and extent of information. Information for nest construction, self-hatching, lifestyle, migration directions, breeding selection?
We learned from the ship’s lecturer that glaciers are ‘indwelled’ by Glacial Worms - Ice Worms.
How do worms survive in these most inhospitable environments?
Why doesn’t the ‘blood’ of the Ice Worm freeze?
Consider what you know about: mites, bugs, insects, flies, worms, algae, and all other ‘small’ and ‘tiny’ kinds of life.
Consider the spider. How did the spider learn web-geometry?
Consider the Reptiles. Consider the Penguins.
Ask questions. What are your answers?
Eggs And Hatching
Consider the species and groups that produce their progeny with eggs, whether birds, reptiles, insects, or whatever.
How did these forms of life reproduce themselves before they ‘evolved’ the ‘egg’?
If evolution is true, then the development of the egg had to have taken billions or millions of years, like any other transition of ‘life’.
And during these years, how did they reproduce?
Did they bear their young while they ‘developed’ the egg, and then reproduced by both means, and then stopped bearing?
What ‘common sense’ explanation does the Naturalist offer?
What Nature Says
Your worldview will be the hermeneutics that superintends your interpretation of ‘Nature’s Declarations’. Take what you know about Nature and see how you interpret it.
What is your worldview and how how do you interpret what Nature declares?Transitional Development?
I am not trying to besmirch those who believe Evolutionary Developement, but for me, I find the believing of explanations (theories) for the Naturalistic Evolvement of all Life in Nature requires an infinitely greater exercising of a blind, superstitious, existential leap of ‘faith’ than any cognitive submission to ‘Faith in God’ - believing God Is God - God Is The Creator.
The Naturalist contends contemporary Man is the result of life evolving over millions - maybe hundreds of millions - of years. Let us look at - or look at the lack of - a few development transitions.
Invertebrate fossils date back 500-600 million years, (give or take a few, what difference does it make?) to the period identified as Cambrian. Prior to this time, the only forms of life that are preserved as fossils are simple single-celled types such as algae and bacteria. Millions of Cambrian fossils have been found, and include more than 5000 species.
In spite of all of the theories offered as explanations of evolvement over millions of years, no fossil has been found that depicts the transition between fish to amphibian, from amphibian to reptile, or from reptile to bird and animal.
These transitions are fundamental tenets of Evolvement.
Separate from trying to determine the age of the sediments in which fossils have been discovered, and other than fossils of life that has become extinct, such as the trilobites, the only certainty is whatever was found, and however old it was determined to be, the same organisms exists today.
Common Sense dictates if Naturalistic Evolvement was True, we would have all kinds of fossils depicting the evolution.
This is a clear example of Naturalists insisting on accepting a view that meets their desires without proof or justification.
Inescapably, then, all life that existed whenever it existed (excepting that which has become extinct), is the same as that which exists today because God created it, not because life evolved from the non-living - the organic from the inorganic.
An alternate view is fossils do not form over eons of years because natural decomposing and decaying eradicates the remains before sediment could encase them. Also, forming of fossils requires tremendous pressures. Consequently the fossils we have were formed by recent cataclysmic catastrophes.
This argument supports Creationists who believe the Earth is young.
Civilization And Archeology
All archeological findings, artifacts, et cetera, indicate civilization is not older than 15 to 20 thousand years, or so. Other than the Creationists, the archeologists are probably the Naturalists’ greatest contrarians.
Common Sense dictates if Naturalistic Evolvement was True, we would have all kinds of archeological artifacts depicting the evolution of civilization.
The alternative view then is, Man is not only recent, but did not evolve because God created Him and we are the progeny of His Creation - not the progeny of Naturalistic Evolvement.
Given the same environment and the same conditions, we would be living the same way our ancestors lived.
Every skull chip, tooth, or limb bone, that was supposedly from the ‘Missing Link’ of the evolutionary development of Man, and was used to construct transitional Man, was later shown to be a fraud. The search for the missing link, along with missing link thinking, captured the unguarded intellectual community during the first-half of the last Century.
All of the chips, teeth, and limbs totaled probably less than a dozen. By the end of the Century, missing link proponents had faded into oblivion. And now, even Naturalists have given up on the missing link.
This is a clear example of how unbelieving Man, including many from the academic community, will grasp anything to ‘explain’ a way (build up a theory) to do away with accountability to God.Non-Physical Realities
It is also an example of how fake and lie based ‘certainties’ eventually will be defeated by Truth.
The Naturalist says only the physical is real and only the physical exists. Since we can not see God, or measure Him, or sense His Physicalness - He does not exist.
Yet the Naturalist does not say this of other ‘realities’ which can not be seen, measured, or sensed physically. Let us consider a few.
The ‘mind’ - does the mind exist physically? Can an electron microscope image the mind? Can the surgeon transplant the mind?
We can talk about the mind and deduce many ‘characteristics’ about the mind. We can describe how it interplays upon the brain and our psyche, and how memory and emotions are stored, at least propose a mechanism that makes ‘sense’. We can theorize the ‘electro-chemical’ properties of our brains that allow healthy minds and what causes ‘mal-functioning’ minds. We describe the sphere in which the mind functions, but we can not physically isolate a mind.
Does this mean minds do not exist? Of course not! We live and treat the mind as a reality.
If it does not exist physically, how does it exist? Or is the existence of our minds a figment of our minds?
Can we say minds exist even though they are not physical?
Let us ask: How do our minds - with all of their complex non-physical capabilities - evolve from physical material without A Transcending Intelligent Mind causing them to so be?
Numbers And Mathematics
Numbers - do ‘numbers’ exist physically? Can we physically ‘see’ a number? We can count numbers of items - but we really don’t see numbers. We have symbols, 1, 2, 3, et cetera, that represent numbers, but we really do not have physically substantive material items that are ‘numbers’.
This may be said of the whole discipline of mathematics. We can write equations - statements in a mathematical language - for circles, oblongs, and triangles, but we don’t see physical circles, oblongs, or triangles - we see objects or paths having these shapes. If we draw a ‘circle’ on a page, and fold the page, what’s on the page - the path of the ink - is no longer circular, but follows two adjacent partial circular paths.
Equations relating mass and acceleration are not seen physically, only their symbolic representations are seen.
Does this mean numbers and mathematics do not exist? Of course not! Our lives, fortunes, health, prosperity, and failure are governed by our use of numbers and mathematics.
If they do not exist physically, how do they exist?
Can we say they exist even though they are not physical?
We ask: How did numbers and mathematics - with all of their complex non-physical relationships evolve from physical material without A Transcending Intellectual Mathematician?
We may ask the same about ‘languages’ - do languages exist physically? Can we physically ‘see’ a language? We can speak, convey thoughts, concepts, et cetera, - but do we really see languages? We have symbols - alphabets - that we use to represent the various sounds of speech, and have meaning, beyond the ink and paper upon which we order them, or the sound waves we hear generated by speaking, but are there physically substantive material items - ‘languages’?
A child understands a language even when he is to young to read or write, and differentiates between the language and gibberish.
And languages may be understood without knowing the sounds that make it function intellectually. Archeologists are able to decipher archaic languages - for which sounds will for ever remain unheard - and understand what was recorded.
Can we agree languages exist even though they are not physical, nor have physical substance?
Our third asking: How did languages - with all of their complex non-physical relationships evolve from physical material without A Transcending Communicating Linguist?
Are we willing to agree, then, there are realities that are not physical?
We talk of the ‘spiritual’ part of Man. We use expressions like: ‘The spirit of man’. So thinking in terms of abstract ‘spiritual’ concepts is normal and acceptable.
Let us then say all realities that are not physical may be grouped into a broad non-physical field of ‘Spiritual’ realities.
And if they are realities they must have substance.
Physical means the substance is of the material of the universe. Our physical bodies are made up of the elements of the material universe - that which science can encounter physically - sense physically and measure physically. Our physical is limited by the laws governing the physical material and energy of the universe.
The laws governing the physical are describable, by such as the General Theory of Relativity and the Special Theory of Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Chemical Theory, Electrical Theory, Et Cetera.
These descriptors are not the actual phenomenons themselves, but are approximations of what we conclude regarding the laws, within the resolutions of our observations.
Since Einstein’s initial development of what we now know as the STR, and its subsequent extension to the GTR, scientific thinking holds our universe is multi-dimensional - many dimensions beyond that of space (three dimensions) and time (the fourth dimension).
As I understand these dimensions - I am just learning and my understanding is developing - some relate to intramolecular forces and behaviors while others relate to intrauniversal forces and behaviors. Furthermore, there are still other dimensions related to ‘anti-matter’ and ‘anti-gravity’ forces and behaviors. These are all presumed from theories attempting to describe the physical makeup and behavior of the Universe.
Accordingly, then, with respect to realities that are not physical:
Can there then not be a spiritual dimensions and spiritual substances not limited or bounded by the laws governing the physical, such as the GTR and the STR?
Does it not make sense, then, if spiritual substances are not limited to be of physical substances, that there is an all encompassing Spiritual Universe which contains the Physical Universe and of which the Physical Universe is a sub-set?
And if the Spiritual dimensions are beyond the Time dimension, then do not the Spiritual dimensions contain (encompass) Time?
And the Physical Laws which we have been allowed to understand, are themselves a sub-set of the Spiritual Laws (descriptions) which we do not yet understand?
And Spiritual boundaries extend beyond Physical boundaries, and Physical ‘space’ is contained within Spiritual ‘space’?
The Emptiness Of Matter
Have we forgotten the electrons, protons, neutrons, and et cetera-trons of molecules actually occupy a miniscule of the ‘space’ occupied by the matter they compose. We have radiation monitors that ‘see’ thru 16 inches of steel. Is it really ‘unbelievable’ and ‘unscientific’ that some of the recordings and promises of Scripture are impossible?
What really keeps us from trans-passing our current physical ‘walls’?
Can we not allow a future when God grants the freedom from the limitations of our current physical restrictions, and ‘Beam me up, Scotty’ becomes an ordinary occurrence?
The Soul And Eternity
Is Death the end of Life? Or do we each have a Soul that exists beyond Death - beyond our experiencing Time?
If there is a Soul, it must be real!
And what is Eternity? Can it be the sphere in which Time, as we know it, does not exist?
Can it not be a continuum of a Spiritual Universe, which transcends the dimension of Time?
And if there is a Soul, did it auto-generate itself from physical mater?
Where in the evolvement chain did all of the sub-humans decide to incorporate a Soul to add to their progeny?
To deny the Soul also means the denial of All Absolutes - the denial of there being Right and Wrong - The denial of there being Good and Evil - The denial of God.
Right and Wrong - Good and Evil - become only what society defines them to be. Ancient pagans who denied the God revealed in His Creation sacrificed their live children to their god Baal - because they defined that to be Right.
And if the Soul is real, can we not be confident it is God Who gives birth to the Soul?
And if God Is - then are we not accountable to Him?
And if God is God must not God be Just?
For more on Evil and Good, and on God being Just, see: ‘Manifestation Of Evil and Good - Sans Scripture’ via the ‘Evil And Good’ link below.
A Unified Theory And Infinite Descriptions
One of the hopes of physicists is to derive a Unified Theory which will yield a completely integrated, rather than segmented, description of the Universe. One of the potential problems, even if it could be derived, is there may be may be no method of measuring what must be measured to determine the values of the parameters and coefficients. Another potential problem is there may be so large a number of parameters their values will be indeterminable.
In contrast to what Man is able to grasp, let us consider a Mind capable of grasping an array of an infinite number of equations with an infinite number of parameters. Or an infinite number of arrays - what difference does it make? And let us consider this Mind would know what the equations would describe with any selection of parameters. And let us consider this Mind defined all the parameters for the equations to describe a Universe He wanted (desired).
And let us consider this Mind desired a material (physical) Universe as well as a ‘Spiritual Universe’ that contained the physical Universe but was not limited by the boundaries and restrictions He desired to imposed upon the material Universe.
And finally, let us consider this Mind to have an associated Power to produce Energy to effect His Design.
Who’s Mind would this be?
And if there was One Who had this Mind would He not be Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnipresent?
However they may define the existence of God, philosophers and scientists engage in trying to define the limits of God’s freedom to specify various parameters of the Universe.
We are faulty in our thinking if we presume God needs to think in terms of equations, or He must be limited to what we theorize as the descriptors of the Universe He integrated.Conclusions?
Our being able to discover some of the mathematical descriptors of physical phenomenon confirms, for me, God exercised Design and Purpose and displayed His Design and Purpose in Creation.
Of innumerable considerations, we have mentioned only a few. You are aware of far more.
For me there is overwhelming evidence supporting God’s Existence. There is overwhelming evidence the Universe was designed. There is overwhelming evidence the Universe was created - by God!
You may see things differently. If you do, take all the knowledge you possess, and using it try to be the attorney defending your client. Let your client be the view you oppose.
I see Scriptural statements regarding the physical are supported by the Truth of the physical we can measure. Hence, I have an added assurance Scriptural statements related to the happenings of the past which can not be repeated - as well as to the non-physical - the Spiritual - are also true!
Where they seem to violate the ‘knowledge’ we presume today will someday be shown to be because our knowledge is wrong, as surely as Scientific history has faded into oblivion many of the Scientific ‘certainties’ of the past.
I hope you will open your mind and let God prove Himself to you.
For many years the majority of the Naturalists were eager to believe the Universe was infinite and always existed. Yet there was no verification! No proof!
What do you ‘gain’ by believing God Is Not?
What do you ‘loose’ be believing God Is?
Why is it so difficult, then, to believe in God - Who Always Existed?
As I stated above, Faith is required to believe in God, but we do not originate that Faith - God provides It.
With an open mind, ask God to prove Himself - to provide that Faith if He exists.
But be willing to take the risk. You may find He will!
Updated: 28 June 2007
Printout: 25 Pages
Evil And Good | Creation | Believability
Site Page | Topic Map | Notes And References