 |
|---|
|
IS THE COSMOS ETERNAL? |
|~~~~~._O_.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~._O_.~~~~~|
| [_____]_______________________________________________[_____] |
| | | | | |
| | | IS THE COSMOS ETERNAL? | | |
| !___!_________________________________________________!___! |
| [_____] [_____] |
|______'O'___________________________________________________'O'______|
Carl Sagan claims there never was a beginning to what he calls the Cosmos.
He says that the Cosmos had always existed. His position is that It just
"pulses" between existing as pure energy and existing as a mixture of energy
and matter. In its present "pulse" it developed life. Of course he doesn't
have any scientific evidence to prove anything beyond its present "pulse."
Not surprising, he says all previous "pulses" and all future "pulses" have to
be accepted by faith. If we have to accept anything by faith, it makes more
sense to believe the Cosmos as he calls it was created by an Intelligence.
It seems more reasonable and logical to conclude that the complexities of
life could not have developed from a "mindless" source no matter how many
times that source "pulsed."
There are also some who would come to the conclusion that there had to be
some Intelligent Being that created the universe, but that such a Being must
have both a good side and an evil side. What else could explain the existence
of both good and evil. Such a view was perported in the "Star Wars" Trilogy.
The "Source" had both a good side and an evil side.
The most reasonable conclusion in all this is that there is an Intelligence
that created the universe and such an Intelligence would be concerned about
what that Intelligent Being created. I was sitting in the living room watching
the bird feeder. I was surprised to see a bird fly so fast he hit the window
and broke his neck. I sat there wishing there was some way I could warn the
birds of the danger without scaring them away.
I remembered reading a similar story of a man who watched some birds in his
yard and wondered how he could help keep them from freezing on an especially
cold winter night. He had concluded that he needed to become a bird himself.
He concluded that as he was so concerned, wouldn't the One who created all of
us have no less concern? Might He not desire to take on a human form to show
us the best way to live?
The One who said He was "the Way, the Truth and the Life" also said when we
see him we also see the Father. He also taught us to begin a prayer by saying
"Our Father Who art in Heaven..." When all is said and done, it seems to me
that although Christianity is suppose to be accepted by faith, it is pretty
reasonable and logical after all.
EVOLUTION REVISITED
by Ellen Makkai
Unfortunately the prevailing attitude assumes those who reject
evolution in 1996 must be superstitious uneducated slugs. I have a fish
emblem on the back of my car, and recently I spied a clever variation, a
fish with legs -no doubt a subtle slam at us religious types.
My upbringing didn't lend itself to religious expression: I attended
girls schools where education and civility was supreme. Close proximity
to the Ivy League prompted interaction with local Universities.
Evolution was a "given". Our hero was Louis Leakey who spent decades
looking for the "missing link". The ascent of man from single-celled
organisms made sense because we never serched beyond the lectures. The
fact that evolution's seven main postulates are not scientifically
supportable never came up.
After my conversion in 1974 it mattered. In the beautiful Biblical
narrative there is no mention of a long protracted evolutionary
process; man shows up, period. The only monkeys suggested marched two
by two into the ark. For years I swallowed the view that evolution
and the Bible can't be reconciled. Clearly it weas time for me to
study if I wanted the truth.
In starting over I found that hard evidence supposting macro-
evolution is zip. The fossil record yields no transitional forms from
one species to another; organisms appear suddenly and singularly
designed. Stephen Gould of Harvard wrote as he abondoned Darwinian
Evolution, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil
records is the trade secret of paleontologists..."
Scientific laws of thermodynamics and biogenesis refute evolution.
Multiplied billions of years are not necessary for evolution. And the
complexity of nature and its interaction makes the view that everything
exists by random chance and without purpose laughable. Astromoner Fred
Hoyle compared evolution to "the chance a tornado sweeping through a
junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747."
The sheer volume of information supporting creation blew me away.
It also bummed me out that that my kids were still being taught that
evolution as a fact. Whenever I asked the school board to include ALL
scientific data in its curriculum the response was, "We cannot in good
conscience promote a religious viewpoint." My daughter's teach even
opined that faith and bright intellect are mutually exclusive. So much
for open educational dialogue.
>=> >=> >=> >=> >=> >=> >=> >=> >=> >=> >=> >=> >=> >=> >=> >=> >=>
|
This Electronic Tract was produced by Fisherman's Net Publications: a division of New Covenant Ministries. For additional information regarding other publications write: Seventh Day Baptist Center 3120 Kennedy Road P.O. Box 1678 Janesville, WI 53547-1678 |
 |
|---|
MIDI files Copyright © 1997 http://www.scn.org/~conrod Conrod Technical Services
Get your own Free Home Page