Our Identity

“stupid,” “weak,” “gay,” “worthless,” “liar,” “cheapskate,” the list goes on and on. These are all names that people get called, identities that people try and force onto other people. Some people are strong enough to have their own identity, and blaze their own trail, but for many of us its hard. Thats why this idea is so important: our identity does not revolve around who we are, but around who God is.

I posted before about how we died, and rose again with Christ. This is part of the reason His identity is ours. His blood covered our sins making them irrelevant. things like “liar,” and “gay” become powerless. We also rose with Christ to become a “new creation” we aren’t what we used to be, and what’s more we are now royalty with Jesus, sons and daughters of the King. No prince or princess is worthless, no prince or princess is a cheapskate.

We also have God on our side. Not just some wimpy God that can occasionally heal a broken toe, but a God who is so powerful that through Him we can move mountains. This is the God who created the universe, and knows all of its secrets. IF this is the God in which we hold our identity then how can we be stupid or weak?

God has an identity for you that is smart, strong, pure, worthy of honor, honest, and so full of spiritual riches that they can’t be contained. All you have to do is claim your new identity as a child of God and a Christian (literally “little Christ”).

The Scientific Affront to Christianity

1 Timothy 6:20 — O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called “knowledge”

Many people in the world today think that Christian beliefs are just “fairy tales”, and “myths”. When Christians try to bring up things like Creationism, and healing many people dismiss it by saying things like “Oh, no, I believe in science.” The trouble with this is that much, if not all, of Christianity is either supported by science, or out of its explanatory range.

Romans 1:22 — Professing to be wise, they became fools.

I have one teacher who I try to talk to creation about. He often starts the conversation by asking me a question. When I start to talk about how I believe that God created everything in a literal six days he always asks me this:  “What about the fossil record?” The trouble with this question is that it,  by itself, cannot prove anything. All that this question claims is that the fossil record exists. I could respond “Yes I think that there is a fossil record.” My fossil record of course is one that proves God created the world in six days. In order to truly understand his question I need to ask him to clarify.

When I get past his question my teacher brings the conversation to a dead stop by saying “Well, I believe in science.” This, also proves nothing. Science doesn’t disagree with what I believe, certainly the majority of the scientists do, but the science doesn’t. Most people seem to think that science and Christian beliefs are in constant conflict. Science says that humanity evolved, Christians say they were created. Science “disproves the existence of the supernatural, Christians believe in a God, and angles, and demons. Science does not contradict what I believe! First off, the science involved in the origin of the humans species is called origins science, and cannot be nearly as certain as operational science which is the science of repeatable, and testable things. Second, Science studies the physical and natural world. It can say nothing about a supernatural world.

Most non-Christians believe that science and Christianity are in conflict when really they aren’t. It is the scientists who disagree, not the science.

Colossians 1:17 — He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

Evolution Vs Creationism: A Linguistic Approach

Genesis 11:8 — Come, let us co down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.

In the educational world biology is very closed to creationist views and completely ignores most creationist views on the origin of life. It is the same way in many other common scholarly subjects like geology, and chemistry. Linguistics is nice, though, because it is much more open to views on creation, and the biblical history of the world.

There are many different theories explaining how language originated among humans. linguistics admits that there is a huge gap between animal communication and human language. our throats are built differently than all animal throats. We have a much larger larynx that is much lower in the throat than animal larynxes. This makes it much easier to talk (The larynx is the voice box), but it also makes it much easier to choke. Animals that have a smaller larynx can actually breathe while they eat and drink. The larger larynx would have to exist long before communication could take place, and would have only served as a handicap for humans, something that contradicts evolution’s “survival of the fittest.”

Man Chimpanzee Comparison
Notice the many differences between the human mouth and the mouth of the chimpanzee, our supposedly close relative.

Animals also have no communication near ours. Humans can improvise new words, and new sentences which is something that numerous studies have shown animals cannot do. Humans can also talk about things far away, and in the future or past. most animals can’t do that either. In fact, the best version of this (called displacement) in all of nature is the bee which can “dance” about things far away.

Evolution asserts that all languages must have originated from one original language. Creation says that while there was originally one language, but God made many more when the people were foolish enough to try to build a tower to heaven. The creationist theory makes the most sense to me. The other theories are many.

The first evolutionary theory says that language originated from the sounds of the things around us. The issue with this is that many of our words, and ideas can’t be expressed in terms of what sound they make. The second theory is related to this, and says that language probably originated from the sounds humans make while doing certain things. This would use things like “ouch”, and “yuck” to communicate. The trouble with this is that interjections such as these are normally made by a sharp intake of breath, not a slow breathing out.

The third theory says that language likely came from people having to communicate. This is a circular theory. It says that people had to find a way to communicate so that they could communicate. It doesn’t provide any explanation for why people would think up these complex systems to communicate instead of just a point or a grunt.

The fourth theory states that people just started to use their mouths in new ways, just like they had started to make tools. This is similar to the third theory. It still doesn’t explain why we started to communicate, or why we have so many different forms of language.

Out of all of these theories the creationist view make the most sense. It says that God made humans that already spoke a language, and that when they became foolish He made many other languages, and spread them across the world.

Evolution vs. Creationism Pt. 2: Can Non-Christians Believe in Evolution?

The answer to this is obviously yes. Any one can believe anything, even if it contradicts the facts of our reality. The real question here is this: Is there any logical, rational, or scientific reason for people to believe in evolution? I say no. Evolution is believed by a large majority of people to be true because it is “science,” and many popular scientists believe it. It is also the only theory for the origin of life taught in most schools in th US. just because most people believe something doesn’t mean it’s true (e.g. the sun orbits the earth).

The thing most people point too when I challenge their beliefs about evolution is the so-called “fossil record.” Many people don’t even know what they mean when they say that. Those who do are pointing towards transitional fossils. The trouble with these transitional fossils is that we have very few. According to evolution all versions of life, including transitional animals, existed for very long time periods, so why are there so few fossils of animals that existed between the distinctive forms we see?

Unlike animals there are quite a few reported cases of ape-human crosses. These however could very easily be normal humans for a few different reasons. The first is that many of them are only small pieces of bones from which scientists (with a bias toward evolution) extrapolated the whole ape-man. The second reason is that humans have been manipulating body growth in some strange ways for a very long time. Take, for instance The Mangbetu tribe of Central Africa who practice a tradition known as Lipombo. Here’s a picture:

Mangbetus doing lipombo

Notice that the mans head is longer than the normal human head. This means that if paleontologists find a human with a long head it doesn’t mean the fossil is a whole new species. Heres another example. The Vadoma tribe from zimbabwe:

People of the Vadoma tribe

These people have two toes. This is just a mutation, it doesn’t make them not human or rather homo sapiens. People in China, also bound their feet for a long time, creating feet that look very strange, and un-human. Just because we find some strange looking human fossils doesn’t mean that they are ape-men. They could also be extinct species of apes that happen to have skeletons similar to humans.

The lack of these transitional fossils is just one reason to doubt evolution. There are animals that scientists believe lived millions of year ago that still exist, or existed very recently. The coelacanth is a perfect example of this. They are a species of fish that scientists thought had gone extinct 65 million years ago until they found out that these fish still live in our oceans today. How can a fish from 65 million years ago still be recognizable today? Evolution says that only 200,000 years ago humans were not modern humans yet this fish has stayed the same for 65 million years.

A Coelacanth found near Africa

As far as we know life cannot form from non-life. There are no firm theories accounting for how proteins and amino acids could have been made, and then joined together in such a way as to make a living thing. There have been experiments done to try to prove that this is possible, but none of them have been anywhere near conclusive. There is a scientific law called the law of biogenesis that says that life can only come from life. This is a scientific law, more than a theory. Evolution, a theory, claims that this law is false, and that life did originate from non-life.

Evolution is the only theory that makes any sense whatsoever if God does not exist. Yet it is not as solid as people would have you believe. It is not fact, nor is it even a law: “a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspect of the universe.” The trouble is that no living human saw the creation of the world so no living human can be entirely sure about what happened. We can however take a look at the facts about life, and the universe to see what is most likely to have happened. The important thing to remember is that creationism, and evolution are on level footing, they are both scientific theories as well as beliefs.

Genesis 1:31 — God saw all that He had made and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning — the sixth day.