Category Archives: Creation

Articles that emphasize biblical six-day, young earth creation.

October 18, 2015 · 10:30

No Gap

earth-implosion

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (Genesis 1:2)

Ever since Charles Darwin published his On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, (in which, by the way, he never addresses the main thesis of his book) it seems that Christian theologians have been scrambling to defend the Genesis creation account and allow for millions of years of evolution. Even now with all the great research being done by creation scientists in the fields of biology, cosmology, geology, meteorology, paleontology, physics, and others, and by great organizations like Answers In Genesis, Creation Ministries International, the Creation Research Society, the Institute for Creation Research and others, still we have far too many Christian pastors and theologians that cower at the roar of atheists and evolutionists when it comes to the question of origins. They fear being labeled as ignorant and uneducated and likened to geocentric flat-earthers. Rather than defend the clear teaching of Scripture on this matter, they will either completely capitulate to the evolutionists, or they will find some compromise to accommodate evolutionary concepts. What really frustrates me is when some of these cowards claim to defend the infallible, inerrant, Word of God. If the Word of God is truly infallible and inerrant, then compromise is not an option.

One such compromise is known as the Gap Theory which proposes that there is a “gap” of long ages – billions of years – between the first two verses of Genesis 1. “According to this concept, Genesis 1:1 describes the initial creation of the universe. Following this, the standard events of cosmic evolution took place, which eventually produced our solar system about five billion years ago. Then, on the earth, the various geologic ages followed, as identified by their respective assemblages of fossils (trilobites, dinosaurs, etc.).”[1] Following this, some sort of global cataclysm takes place destroying all life and God must re-create the earth. Thus, Genesis 1:2 is describing the earth “becoming” without form and void. This idea was popularized by the Scofield Bible, and widely accepted for almost a century, but it was due more to fear of ridicule than solid Bible apologetics.

The first problem with this view begins with the first word of the second verse – “And.” We must first keep in mind that the original text did not include chapter and verse divisions. The text was a continuous reading. The “And” at the beginning of verse two is the Hebrew letter waw (pronounced “vav”). In Hebrew grammar, this construct is known as a “waw consecutive” indicating that there is no break between what precedes it and what follows. The text, then, is one continuous thought without any break: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, and the earth was without form, and void.” By the way, punctuation marks were not part of the original Hebrew text; punctuations were added by the translators as they thought proper according to English grammar. The same is true for the remainder of verse two: “and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” Each of those “ands” is a “waw consecutive” indicating no break in the action. Furthermore, verses 3-5 all begin with a “waw consecutive,” indicating no break in the action from the beginning of verse one to the end of verse five. Simply analyzing the Hebrew grammatical construction of these first five verses of Genesis destroys any notion of “gaps” in the creation account in Genesis. Attempting to insert a gap in the text is simply sloppy hermeneutics.

The second problem presents itself with the final statement in verse five: “And the evening and the morning were the first day.” “Evening and morning” define a normal 24-hour day. In addition, the Hebrew word translated “day” is yom, and it is normally understood to mean a single 24-hour day. Although it is rarely used to indicate an undetermined time as in “the day of the Lord” or “in that day” or “in those days”; it is never used to indicate an indefinite amount of time as in millions of years. There are other options for specifying longer periods of time. For example, in Daniel 9:24, the use of shâbûa‛ meaning “seven” and translated “weeks” in the King James Bible (KJV), is used to indicate a period of seven years. Later, in Daniel 12:7, the use of mô‛êd, meaning “an appointment” or a “fixed season” and translated “time” in the KJV, is used to indicate a year, although “year” in Hebrew is actually shâneh. Hebrew does have a word for an indefinite amount of time; that word is ‛ôlâm, which is often used in the sense of eternity. So, God had other word options to indicate eons of time, yet He chose to use the word for a normal 24-hour day.

Finally, God regards “death” as an enemy. “The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death” (1 Corinthians 15:26, emphasis mine). At the end of the sixth day, God assessed His work, “And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day” (Genesis 1:31, emphasis mine). Think about this: God, who is incapable of any error whatsoever, declares His creation, not just “good,” but “very good.” The Hebrew word for “very” is mǝ‘ôd, and it is an adjective meaning “vehemence” or “vehemently.” That is a very strong word describing God’s assessment of His perfect creation. Now think about this: if God considers death the enemy, why would He allow billions of years of death inserted between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 and then turn around and exuberantly declare His creation “very good”? That makes no sense! God does not contradict Himself like that. Furthermore, the enemy, death, entered through Adam’s sin (Romans 5:12), and the penalty for sin is death (Romans 6:23). That being true, then how could death have existed before Adam’s sin? And if death existed in “the gap” prior to Adam’s sin, then how could death be “the enemy” and the “penalty” for sin? So, the “Gap Theory” raises some serious theological issues.

If a preacher, pastor, theologian or layman professes to believe in the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture, it is time to claim ALL of it, stand by ALL of it, defend ALL of it, and stop making excuses and compromising with the secularists that disregard both the Bible and the Creator. There is NO GAP in Genesis. The only gap that exists is the chasm of sin that separates man from God, and that gap cannot be bridged by compromising any part of God’s Word.

Notes:

[1]  Henry M. Morris, “Why the Gap Theory Won’t Work” (http://www.icr.org/article/why-gap-theory-wont-work), accessed October 16, 2015.

12 Comments

Filed under Apologetics, Atheism, Christianity, Creation, Evolution, Gospel, Origins, Religion, Salvation, Theology

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

October 11, 2015 · 10:30

Clothing

Fashion-And-Modern-Youth

Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment.   (Zechariah 3:4b)

Someone asked about clothing. How did it develop, and what does the Bible have to say about it? If you consult secular sources, you may learn that “Evidence suggests that human beings may have begun wearing clothing as far back as 100,000 to 500,000 years ago.”[1] Of course, those guesses find their basis in evolutionary thought, which is inconsistent with biblical chronology.  These same sources admit that “It is not known when humans began wearing clothes, but anthropologists believe that animal skins and vegetation were adapted into coverings as protection from cold, heat and rain…”[2] We can agree that clothing has been important in human history from the very beginning.  “The wearing of clothing is exclusively a human characteristic and is a feature of most human societies.”[3] I do not know this for a fact, but I would venture to say all human societies, even the most primitive, wear some type of clothing.

As for what the Bible has to say, Genesis 2:25 tells us that both the man and the woman were naked at the time of their creation. Genesis 3:7-8 tells us that after they sinned, they discovered that they were naked, and were ashamed. Why were they ashamed? I cannot be dogmatic about this, but I think that when they were first created (in the image of God), they had an aura (light) about them. I arrive at this conclusion from examples given in the Bible of individuals, like Moses, acquiring a glow or radiance about them from being in the presence of God. Angels are described as having this glow (Acts 10:30). Jesus had this glow at His transfiguration (Matthew 17:2), and He has it in the descriptions of Him given in Revelation 1:16. So, I believe Adam and Eve had this glow about them, and when they sinned, the light went out, and they saw that they were naked. More than that, they recognized that they had lost something of the image of the One in whose image they were made. They lost their identity with their Creator, and they were afraid (Genesis 3:10).

At the end, God (and I believe this was God in human form – the pre-incarnate Christ) sacrificed innocent animals (probably sheep or goats), and He made clothes to cover the fallen couple. There is an interesting but subtle play on words here with the Hebrew word for skins – ‛ôr. It is pronounced the same as the Hebrew word for light – ‘ôr – but it is spelled differently. The former is spelled with an aleph (א), and the latter is spelled with an ayin, (ע). Before the Fall, they were clothed in light, ‛ôr, and after the Fall they were clothed in skins, ‘ôr. That Jesus shed the blood of innocent animals in order to provide coverings for His fallen creatures, Adam and Eve, speaks of “atonement” – Hebrew kâphar meaning “to cover.” We see in this a representation of the Gospel: Jesus, the innocent Lamb of God, shedding His blood to cover our sins.

Our clothing, then, should serve as a reminder of our sinfulness and of God’s provision for covering that sin. Like the fig leaves Adam and Eve sewed together (Genesis 3:7), our clothing is inadequate to cover our sins. Clothes wear out, they get dirty, or they fall out of fashion. Daily we have to change one outfit for another. However, in heaven, our clothing will not wear out or have to be replaced.[4] “After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, … These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb” (Revelation 7:9, 14). I do not know, but I think that our “robes” will be that same “light” which covered Adam and Eve before the Fall.

Do you have your heavenly wardrobe reserved? If you are not sure, here are some other articles that may help answer your questions:

No One Escapes Judgment

You Don’t Go to Hell Because You’re A Sinner

Only One Way In

Notes:

 

[1]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_clothing_and_textiles accessed October 9, 2015.

[2]  Ibid.

[3]  Ibid.

[4]  See “Clothing In Heaven” https://erniecarrasco.com/2014/11/30/clothing-in-heaven/

3 Comments

Filed under Apologetics, Christianity, Creation, Current Events, End Times, Gospel, Heaven, Salvation, Second Coming of Christ, Theology

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

July 5, 2015 · 10:30

The Rainbow

I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.  (Genesis 9:13)

From the beginning of time Satan has attempted to pervert everything that God created and called “very good” (Genesis 1:31). A prime example is revealed in last week’s ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States that homosexual cohabitation should be regarded as “marriage” and protected as a legal right under the Constitution of the United States. Such a ruling stains the bounds of reason considering that the same protection finds no haven in the Constitution for heterosexual unions. The lack of understanding demonstrated by five out of the nine justices illuminates the depths of depravity to which our nation has declined. The court’s decision prompted exhibitions of jubilation from what used to be the White House (now bathed in the colors of the rainbow) down to the streets of America. Local news media fight to maintain objectivity in reporting the atrocity as the grins on news anchors’ faces betray their accord with the order.

Regardless of the decision handed down by these black-robed oligarchs, “marriage” was defined by God at Creation. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (Genesis 1:27). Out of the side of man, God created the woman (Genesis 2:21) “And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man” (Genesis 2:22, emphasis mine). In doing so, God effectively performed the first marriage ceremony. Marriage is not a human institution, it is a Divine institution, so much so that the relationship between Christ and His church is described as a marriage (Matthew 22:2-14; John 3:29; Ephesians 5:23; Revelation 18:23; Revelation 19:7). So, aside from the lawlessness of this act by this Supreme Court, it is the height of arrogance for mere man to redefine what God has already established. But, that is nothing new!

So, what does this have to do with the rainbow, you might ask. The rainbow has been adopted by the sodomites as a symbol of their perverted cause. Like the devil, who I imagine is reveling in his presumed victory; they have taken a sign of God’s promise not to destroy the earth by water again, and have used it as a banner to flaunt the kind of perversion that brought about God’s wrath in the first place (Genesis 6:5; Genesis 19:1-9).  Franklin Graham, son of famed evangelist Billy Graham and founder of Samaritan’s Purse, said, “God is the one who gave the rainbow, and it was associated with His judgment. God sent a flood to wipe out the entire world because mankind had become so wicked and violent.”[1]

Note that God identifies the rainbow as His bow: “I do set my bow in the cloud” (Genesis 9:13, emphasis mine). Indeed, the rainbow in the Bible is always associated with the throne of God. The prophet Ezekiel’s description of God’s throne (Ezekiel 1) defies human explanation, but one of the features is the rainbow that surrounds the throne.

And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it. And I saw as the colour of amber, as the appearance of fire round about within it, from the appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward, I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and it had brightness round about. As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. And when I saw it, I fell upon my face, and I heard a voice of one that spake. (Ezekiel 1:26-28, emphasis mine)

A similar description of the rainbow surrounding God’s throne appears again in Revelation.

And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne. And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald. (Revelation 4:2-3, emphasis mine)

And I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven, clothed with a cloud: and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was as it were the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire: (Revelation 10:1, emphasis mine)

God’s throne is also his “judgment seat.” The Greek word translated “judgment seat” is bēma, and it is translated as throne in Acts 12:21, “And upon a set day Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat upon his throne, and made an oration unto them” (emphasis mine). This brings us back around to the rainbow surrounding the throne of God from where He sits in judgment.  “But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ” (Romans 14:10). “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad” (2 Corinthians 5:10).

The poor misguided souls who celebrate their perversion beneath the colors of the rainbow call down upon themselves the judgment of God. The foolhardy President of the United States who bathes the People’s House in the colors of the rainbow in celebration of the Supreme Court’s foolish ruling unwittingly calls God’s judgment down upon our nation. This may well be the final nail in the coffin that America has built for itself

I see dark days ahead for our nation, but if you are a born-again follower of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, a brighter day is coming, and it may come sooner than you think. In the meantime, Jesus said, “Occupy till I come” (Luke 19:13). “Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid … Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 5:14, 16). This is not the time for passivity.

Notes:

 

[1] World News Daily, “Franklin Graham: ‘Gay’ Rainbow Ends Badly,” http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/franklin-graham-gay-rainbow-ends-badly/, accessed July 2, 2015.

4 Comments

Filed under Apologetics, Bible, Christianity, Creation, Current Events, End Times, Evangelism, Gospel, Heaven, Politics, Religion, Second Coming of Christ, Theology

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

June 14, 2015 · 10:30

The Curse of Death

And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment (Hebrews 9:27)

And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment (Hebrews 9:27)

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.  (Genesis 2:17)

This week a young man, who labeled himself an agnostic, wrote in with a very good question concerning the curse of death. His question was posed as follows:

Genesis 2:17 says, “in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.” Assuming that day equals 24 hours (big assumption, but Gen 2 is still part of the creation account) then the death must be spiritual or non-literal, since Adam lived to be 930 years – Gen 5:5. If the death resulting from sin is not literal, what is the relationship between sin and physical death? Is there any relation at all? Could physical death have occurred before sin? If sin and physical death are not related, why would Jesus have to rise from the dead? Is a bodily resurrection necessary for salvation? Why? Does any of the apostle Paul’s teaching of Christ conflict with a spiritual interpretation of death and sin? (I Cor 15:12-22)

Alternately, if the term “day” in Genesis 2:17 is not 24 hours, but instead an unspecified length of time equalling [sic] at least 930 years, most of the same questions about the relationship between sin and physical death would still apply.

His question is a very good one, and one of the key points in our biblical apologetics. The “death” described in Genesis 2:17 must be taken in context with the entire account of creation and the Fall, and in light of the rest of Scripture. Genesis 1 and 2 both narrate the creation account. Genesis 1:1-2:4 is God’s account of creation, and it gives a broad overview of the creation week. (For more details, see the notes on Genesis 1 and Genesis 2:1-4). Genesis 2:5 begins Adam’s account, and the focus is on Day Six and the creation of man. Allow me to regress and point out that chapter and verse divisions are not inspired. The original text was a continual reading with no breaks. This can sometimes be an obstacle, if one does not recognize that fact.

Another point that needs to be clarified is that the 24-hour day is not an “assumption” as he suggests. The Hebrew word used is yom, and it almost always means a normal 24-hour day in the Bible. When it is not a 24-hour day, such as in the “day of the Lord” (yom laYahweh) it is referring to a specific time, but never an extended period of time. Furthermore, God clearly defines the meaning of “day” with the phrase “evening and morning were the nth day” (Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23).

At the end of the sixth day, God declared His creation not only “good” as in the previous five days, but “very good” (Genesis 1:31). Keep in mind that this assessment comes from an ultimately perfect being. So, if death existed before the fall, can death be considered a very good thing? If we say death is good, then how can death be a curse? And if death cannot be a curse, then why should Jesus die to pay the curse (the wages) of sin? If death was just a “spiritual” death, then, again, why should Jesus die a “physical” death to atone for a “spiritual” death? That really does throw a huge wrench in the works of the Gospel.

But “physical” death is NOT good. The Bible calls death the “enemy” (1 Corinthians 15:26). In the end, “death and hell (Greek hades “the grave”)” are cast into “the lake of fire” (Revelation 20:14). So, physical death cannot be part of a “very good” creation, if the Creator counts it as an enemy and something to be abolished. When God issued the command “thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Genesis 2:17), He was speaking of physical death. “Spiritual” death, i.e., separation from God, was a necessary consequence of that disobedience because He is the source of life (Job 33:4; Psalm 36:9; John 1:4; 5:26; 6:48; 10:28; 11:25; 14:6, et al). So, the death was both physical and spiritual. To further emphasize the point, Adam and Eve, since they had never experienced or observed death (keeping in mind that this all occurred shortly after creation – probably within a week or so), God (in the form of the pre-incarnate Christ – my opinion) sacrificed two (or more) innocent animals (probably sheep) in order to “cover” (atone for) their sin (Genesis 3:21). This was the first physical death of anything to this point, but on the spiritual side, man had already lost that intimate relationship with their Creator (Genesis 3:8).

This young man observed that Adam lived 930 years and concludes that the death curse must not have been physical but only spiritual, because they did not die immediately. One needs only to read Chapter 5 of Genesis and count how often the phrase “and he died” is repeated. Adam and Eve did not die instantly when they ate of the fruit, but they initiated the dying process. The phrase “you shall surely die” (Hebrew: mot tamot) would be better translated “dying you shall die.” Furthermore, the couple was denied access to the “tree of life” (Genesis 3:22) because apparently it had properties that would extend their life forever. The fact that they lived the long ages that they did is attributable to near perfect DNA (with the exception of the death mutation), and a near perfect environment. You may want to note the steady decline in longevity following the Global flood (Genesis 11:11-32).

Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 15:12-22 confirms that the curse of death is both physical and spiritual – physical in that our bodies degenerate to the point that they cease to function (we die), and spiritual in that our sin separates us from God (as physical death separates our spirit from our body). Jesus was sinless, like the first lambs sacrificed for Adam and Eve. Paul tells us that the “wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23); here we are speaking of that spiritual death that separates us from God. Jesus’ death on the cross was the only sacrifice suitable to pay that debt of sin that separates us from God for all of mankind. “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins” (Hebrews 10:4). Then when He rose again, He conquered the curse of physical death so that we can have eternal life. The choice, however, remains with us. From beginning to end, God has provided the way to restore that broken relationship and to enjoy eternal life with our Creator. We can either accept His offer, or reject it. “He came unto his own [not only the Jews, but mankind in general], and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name” (John 1:11-12).

3 Comments

Filed under Apologetics, Bible, Christianity, Creation, Death, Evangelism, Gospel, Origins, Religion, Salvation, Theology

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

May 31, 2015 · 10:30

A Special Kind of Stupid

Image Credit: The Greanville Post, http://www.greanvillepost.com/2014/04/29/his-day-in-court-a-chimpanzee-makes-legal-history/

Image Credit: The Greanville Post: “His day in Court—A Chimpanzee Makes Legal History“

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.  (Genesis 1:26)

This week “Two research chimps got their day in court … Steven Wise, an attorney with the Nonhuman Rights Project, told Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Barbara Jaffe that Hercules and Leo, the 8-year-old research chimps at Stony Brook University on Long Island, are ‘autonomous and self-determining beings’ who should be granted a writ of habeas corpus, which would effectively recognize them as legal persons. The chimps, he argued, should be moved from the university to a sanctuary in Florida”[1] (emphasis mine).

Well, what can one expect! For years now evolutionists have been claiming that chimpanzee DNA is 98% the same as that of humans. If that is so, then it stands to reason that they should at least be considered 98% persons. Is that not so? However, the DNA findings exaggerate the similarity in a narrow segment of the genome and deemphasize the vast differences that clearly separate chimps from humans. Biologist Dr. Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Research Associate in Life Sciences for the Institute for Creation Research, researches these claims made by the evolutionists. In comparing 40,000 chimpanzee genomic sequences against the human genome, Tomkins found “that reported levels of human-chimp DNA similarity were significantly lower than commonly reported … For the chimp autosomes, the amount of optimally aligned DNA sequence provided similarities between 66 and 76 percent, depending on the chromosome. Only 69 percent of the chimpanzee X chromosome was similar to human and only 43 percent of the Y chromosome. Genome-wide, only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human under the most optimal alignment conditions.”[2] The 28% (give or take) variance may seem small, but in genomics, it is huge. “While, chimpanzees and humans share many localized protein-coding regions of high similarity, the overall extreme discontinuity between the two genomes defies evolutionary timescales and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor.”[3]

I am no scientist, but even without getting into the coded information contained in DNA, the differences between chimps and humans seem obvious to me. To make an evaluation, one needs only to ask a few simple questions.  Aside from some basic similarities like: chimps have hands, humans have hands; chimps have feet, humans have feet (albeit chimps have “thumbs” on their feet and humans have a big toe); chimps have faces, humans have faces; chimps express emotions, humans express emotions; chimps nurture their young; humans nurture their young; chimps live in communities, humans live in communities; chimps communicate (as do most other animals), humans communicate; chimps make “tools,” humans make tools. There may be other similarities, but basically, it ends there. The questions reveal the differences.

Chimpanzees can make simple “tools,” but can they replicate a tool or mass produce it? Do they teach their tool making techniques to others in their community? Do they improve their tools to make them more functional or employ their tools for a variety of different purposes? Chimpanzees can build shelters, but can they build permanent structures? Do they employ aesthetic design in their building efforts or are their shelters simply utilitarian? For that matter, do chips create anything – paintings, sculptures, music, etc.? What is the extent of their creative abilities, if any, and how do they compare to those of humans? Can chimpanzees do even simple math? Do they develop economic systems or practice even the most basic exchange systems? We know that chimps can communicate in some rudimentary ways, but have they developed a language? Do they exchange ideas, and if so, how is that accomplished? Have they ever developed a system of writing, and if they have, do they value it enough to preserve it? Do chimps study chimpanzee anatomy in order to “doctor” on one another? Do they research in order to find cures for chimpanzee diseases? Along the same lines, do chimps study other animals to learn their habits and habitats? Do they observe the stars at night and dream about visiting other worlds? Chimps play, but do they develop games with rules and teach the game to others in order to stimulate healthy competition?

The comparisons are endless, but the more questions one considers, it becomes all the more obvious that chimpanzees fall far short of human achievements and capabilities. Sure chimps have greater strength than humans. They can swing from tree to tree even using their feet to grasp branches; but they do not have the manual dexterity to play a flamenco guitar, harp, piano, or violin; or the grace to match the agility of a gymnast or to dance a ballet or to figure skate.

The evolutionists claim that humans and chimps originated from a common ancestor. If that is the case, then why have chimpanzees not advanced even to the level of the most primitive human tribes? Supposedly they have had the same 100,000 years as humans (according to evolutionists) to evolve beyond their lowly “animal” status. So why are they stuck at the point of their origin? The fact is that they are animals and humans are, well, humans. Chimps were created by the spoken word of God (Genesis 1:24-25); humans were formed (Hebrew yâtsar meaning form or mold) in the image of God (Genesis 2:7; 1:26-27). The difference in creation between beast and man is so distinct, from the Creator’s point of view as recorded in Scripture, that one would really have to be some special kind of stupid to attribute personhood to an animal on par with that of a human being. But, this should really not surprise us. The Bible teaches that those who profess such things have “changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever” (Romans 1:25, emphasis mine).

So, if these chimps really are “legal persons” – the “autonomous and self-determining beings” their lawyers claim – they should go out and hire their own lawyers!

 

 Notes:

[1] Krishnadev Calamur, “Research Chimps Get Their Day in Court in New York,” (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/05/27/410058029/research-chimps-get-their-day-in-court-in-new-york). Accessed May 28, 2015.

[2] Jeffery Tomkins, “New Research Evaluating Similarities Between Human and Chimpanzee DNA,” (http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Research-Evaluating-Similarities-Human-Chimp-DNA.pdf). Accessed May 28, 2015.

[3] Ibid.

2 Comments

Filed under Apologetics, Creation, Current Events, Evolution, Origins, Science, Theology

Tagged as , , , , , , ,