Kathy Petersen’s Blog

Some good links

Posted in Christianity, creation by Kathy on July 17, 2010

Why theistic evolution is be wrong and should be avoided by any who call themselves Christians

First, because when Christians belittle the historical account of Genesis and prefer a hypothesis begun with the presumption that there is no god, so that everything we see must have come about by nothing, they cut “the anchor line” that tethers them to Christ. Yes, some Christians may believe in theistic evolution and remain otherwise true Christians; but far too often, Christians relent on the clear teaching of Genesis and accept millions and billions of years (with a little bit of God thrown in to make it more acceptable to the Christian palate), and then get their legs cut out from under them by the nonsense that inevitably comes from holding that position, and ultimately turn against the faith altgoether. To quote from Richard Dawkins (copied from this article which quotes his book The God Delusion):

‘Oh, but of course, the story of Adam and Eve was only ever symbolic, wasn’t it? Symbolic? So, in order to impress himself, Jesus had himself tortured and executed, in vicarious punishment for a symbolic sin committed by a non-existent individual? As I said, barking mad, as well as viciously unpleasant.’ (emphasis in original; p. 253)

One of the most common questions or come-backs from theistic evolutionists (or those leaning toward that position), is along the lines of, “I can’t understand how God could create the universe in such a way as to appear to be millions/billions of years old — that would be deceptive!” [As if God writing in His Word that He created the universe and all it contains in six days, when in actuality it took millions or billions of years, would somehow be less deceptive?!] What these people often don’t understand (as far as I can tell), is that people did not come up with the ideas of long ages based on the evidence; rather, they came up with that idea based on the assumption that there is no god, and if there is no god, we must explain everything by purely naturalistic principles; and if there is no god, then there can be no special creation, so everything must have just somehow appeared, but it would take even too great a leap of faith for them to say it happened quickly or instantaneously, but if you give “enough time,” then even the improbable becomes possible. Sort of like in “Dumb and Dumber” when Mary tells Lloyd that the odds of them ending up together are “a million to one,” and he gets this goofy grin and says, “So you’re telling me there’s a chance….!”

Here is a parable that perfectly sums up the theistic evolutionist’s position, and the problems that happen when one ignores the history of one who was there, and instead substitutes assumptions that cannot be proven but which skew the results, and go against the written account.

“Why Limit God?”

Posted in creation by Kathy on March 21, 2010

Occasionally when I get into discussions with people who claim to believe the Bible but discount the first 11 chapters (the history of creation, the first several generations of mankind, the Flood, and the dispersion following the Tower of Babel), they say things like, “Well, God could have used evolution to make the world, like most scientists say, so when you insist on a literal interpretation, you’re just limiting God. He could do anything He wanted, so you’re in essence saying that He couldn’t have used evolution when you insist on believing a straight reading of the book of Genesis.”

I was made to think in this vein tonight, and I’ll offer an analogy.

Let’s say a woman you knew had just given birth, and she was telling you what happened. Suppose she told you she gave birth at home, and you said, “You mean, you had a C-section.” She’d probably look at you a little funny, and repeat, “No, I had my baby at home.” Then you said, “Right, you had your baby by C-section.” “No,” she insists, “I did not have a C-section — I gave birth at home. I didn’t even tear!” Finally, you realize you’re not making any headway, so you say, “Whatever, you had your baby — what does it matter whether you had a C-section or gave birth vaginally? And why are you limiting yourself? — you could have had a C-section, so it’s basically the same difference.”

You see, the woman wasn’t giving all the possibilities; she was merely giving actual history. And, yes, it does matter for historical purposes and accurate records whether her story was recorded properly. Why is it that we accept people’s accounts of something that happened without insisting that because it happened that way it was somehow limiting them on other things that might have happened? We don’t insist that our friends really stayed home when they actually went on vacation, so why should some people insist that believing history as written in the Bible is somehow a foolish exercise that limits God?

What evidence?

Posted in Christianity, creation by Kathy on March 16, 2010

Someone on an old post said something about there not being any verses in the Bible that specifically say the earth/universe is young — “young” meaning on the order of 10,000 years or less — much less than the Big Bang or the chance arising of life from nonliving materials would allow. [Leaving aside the history of Genesis with a pretty strict chronology that allows one to add up dates of each man being X years old when he fathered a particular son, working your way back to Adam who was created on day 6 of the existence of the universe, I guess.] There isn’t a verse which says, “And in the 4th year of the reign of David, king of Israel, the earth turned 2035 years old,” or anything like it. But I contend it’s not necessary, given the history — much like one could say, “In the year 1776, the American colonies declared their independence from Britain,” without reiterating 230 years later that the country is 230 years old. Past history suffices. He also said that “not all thinking Christians/Jews from time immemorial have subscribed to the young earth-young universe model.”

So I asked him, but have not yet received an answer (he may just be ignoring me, although he may ultimately answer), “What Biblical evidence do you have that the universe is old? Which Christian or Jew prior to, say, the 1800s believed that the earth/universe was old?”

Yes, I know there are verses that talk about the earth being old, but it depends on perspective. Compared to humans which live about 70 years, 1000 years would definitely qualify as “old.” But, I’m just curious if there are any verses which teach that the universe is hundreds of thousands or even millions or billions of years old. I’m not talking about fitting things in sideways, or twisting passages — like the “gap theory” which says there’s a gap of several millions of years between Gen. 1:1 & Gen. 1:2 — I’m talking about verses which teach it, not those that might possibly could maybe somehow be construed to allow for millions of years.

Also, if anybody knows any Bible-believing Christian or Jew prior to the 1800s (the century when long-age philosophy first became popular in modern times) who believed in an old universe/earth, please tell me his name or link somewhere to it.

Just curious. And here is a list of articles that are available that demonstrate my position.

Theistic Evolution

Posted in Christianity, creation by Kathy on September 24, 2009

Many Christians, overwhelmed by the so-called “scientific evidence” put forth by evolutionists, have kowtowed to them, and, unwilling to make a complete break with the Bible, have accepted both God and a godless evolution, mingling them into the incoherent “theistic evolution.” Basically, God created everything (which is the “core” of what Genesis really says [according to them]) but he did so using evolutionary means, just like the secular, atheistic scientists say.

This article blasts that position, showing it to be not just Scripturally untenable (despite the protestations of the theistic evolutionists I encountered after writing this post), but also to be intellectually untenable as well. It includes quotes from various atheists about theistic evolution, including,

Our best allies for defending evolution are members of the mainstream clergy groups.

This is because, as atheist Frank Zindler said,

The most devastating thing though that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of … evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a saviour. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed.

As this mother found out (first comment), once people accept evolution as a fact, with a bit of theology thrown in (God started the Big Bang and worked to “create” the universe including this planet and everything on it via materialistic processes and over the course of billions and billions of years), then it is but a small step to discard the idea that God had anything to do with it, because of the logical inconsistency of holding onto billions of years with one hand, and holding onto the Biblical creation account (which clearly shows just a few days of creation, and that only a few thousand years ago) with the other hand. Having accepted “the fact” of long-age evolution, the only thing left to challenge is the “theistic” part of it.

Atheists know this; too bad more Christians don’t. Even Dr. Dobson, of Focus on the Family, whom I generally agree with, is a long-age theistic evolutionist. Sad to say.

Focus on Marriage Teleconference, Part 3

Posted in Christianity, creation, marriage by Kathy on March 4, 2009

Here is part 1 (which includes the introduction — if you haven’t read it yet, please read at least the opening paragraphs), and here is part 2.

Del Tackett was the third speaker of the teleconference, and he began by saying he preferred calling himself a “teacher” rather than just a speaker, and had a “chalkboard” (not slate, and he didn’t use chalk, but I’m not sure what to technically call it) that he used later.

In Creation, there was one thing that was declared “not good,” and that was “for man to be alone.” Why?

What God has made reveals His glory — “The heavens declare the glory of God…”; Rom. 1 — what may be known of God is plain to man because God has made it plain to them… which is why men are without excuse. We see tremendous diversity, yet unity — it is not chaotic, but there is a system (within cells, organs, systems, the body; as well as the sub-cellular particles that exist in a system). The whole creation is filled with relationships — everything is in a relationship: neutrons, protons electrons; blood clotting; photosynthesis; husband and wife; extended families; etc. At the Fall, relationships were damaged — God and man (Adam hid from God); Adam vs Eve (the blame game); Cain vs. Abel (murder).

The “Divine Pause” — “it is not good for man to be alone” — it was the only time in the Creation week that something was labeled as “not good” although it was possible for God to have said that it was not good for there to be plants with no sun, or waters with no fish; but God took the time to point out this one thing in the week of creation that was “not good.” Marriage is as concrete a creation of God as is the sun, the grass, etc.

The Trinity has been in perfect order and relation since eternity past — “one God” could be thought of as “the Oneness of God” — “I and My Father are One.”

At this point, he used the chalkboard and drew a large circle and wrote the words “Father,” “Son” and “Holy Spirit” and connected them with lines (a quasi-triangle). Then he drew a similar circle (slightly overlapping with the first circle), and wrote in a similar fashion “Husband,” “Wife” and “Children.”

The husband and the wife are to be “one flesh.”

The Son submits to the Father; the wife is to submit to the husband — submission is not negative, not a “dirty word,” but existed before the Fall of man, a Divine attribute, delightful in the eyes of God.

The Triune God and the triune family bears the mark of God.

God has given blueprints for our social systems — He doesn’t give us blueprints for photosynthesis or atomic structure because they don’t disobey God, but we have a tendency to defy God.

1 Pet — “Husbands…treat your wives as weaker vessels, with honor, as joint-heirs, that your prayers be not hindered.”

Eph. 5 — “Husbands, love your wives; wives, respect your husbands” — don’ t mother them.

Here he told a short story about his own wife — she made soup and as she gave him his bowl, she said, “You’ll need a spoon, they’re over in the drawer” (as if he were a small child); to us he said (showing his thought processes) with gritted teeth — “I know I need a spoon, and I know they’re in that drawer — what am I, an idiot?!?” What he did at the time was say nothing, but plopped his bowl at the table and clammed up. Then he admonished us wives that if their husbands just clam up, it would be wise for them to rewind their minds and see if there was something like this that they did recently — treating husbands like children is disrespectful to them, and ultimately, to God.

There was another “Divine Hesitation” in a garden — the Garden of Gethsemane — “Father, let this cup pass from Me” — why? the physical pain? No — but for the first time the unity that existed in the Godhead, the unity between Father and Son (“I and My Father are One”) would be borken, to suffer the penalty of sin, separation of God. God hates divorce — it is the tearing asunder of that which was one, defying God.

The world is full of the pernicious lie that “it’s all about you!” No, this world is not about you — it’s all about God! The former attitude destroys intimacy and relationships; the consequences are huge. “Choose this day blessings” (of following God’s script and plan) “rather than curses” (of following the world’s philosophy and ideology.

A C.S.I. moment

Posted in creation, Uncategorized by Kathy on April 7, 2008

I used to watch CSI all the time, especially when it first came out, and I liked the catch-phrases “What does the evidence say?” and “Follow the evidence.” It is important to know what the evidence actually says. And not just what people say the evidence says.

For instance, when you talk about creation vs. evolution, those who hold to the latter theory like to portray the theory of creation as being based solely on the Bible, or even on mythical, fictitious accounts; whereas the theory of evolution is portrayed as being based solely on science. But is that what the evidence shows?

Recently there have been some posts, and comments on those posts, about creation vs. evolution. Some evolutionists have (politely or rudely) proudly proclaimed that their belief system is based on science, and point to the number of scientists who accept the theory of evolution. Of course, “majority rules” is fine for the playground, but science is held to a slightly higher standard. So, what does science show?

Some talk about the “science” that demonstrates that the world is millions of years old. Does it? Actually, no. That is the presupposition, and all evidence is skewed to “support” that theory, or else it is ignored. For instance, the various methods of dating objects all produce different ages, many of them multiple millions of years difference. How can we be sure that any of these dating methods are accurate? Also, they are all based on a couple of suppositions — the first being that the rate of decay is constant, so what we see now is the way it has always been; and the second is the starting amount of a certain element in the rock (or whatever is being measured).

So that is not strictly science, but rather, supposition.

Another supposition is that what we see now is the way it has always been, including the rate of sedimentation. That is a huge assumption, and one that cannot be tested. Using this assumption, “scientists” say (I’m making up numbers, because I don’t know the current rate of sedimentation), “If it takes 5 years for an inch of sediment to form, and we’ve got a column that’s a mile high, then it’s taken 315,000 years for that column to form. Therefore, those fossils that are at the bottom of the pile must be at least 315,000 years old.” (Except they usually have this in the order of millions of years.) Only problem is that we don’t know if that is correct. Also, if it takes 5 years for an inch of sediment to form, how did any fossils get created? When animals die, they begin to decompose and scavengers eat their bodies as well. This process begins almost immediately. Yet many fossils show whole creatures (whether plant or animal), which shows that the animal was either buried alive or buried immediately after it died. The only known way for this to happen would be for the animal to have been caught in a flood of water and/or mud. All fossils had to be created in a flood, and not in some slowly-accumulating sediment. Therefore the whole basis and premise is wrong. Yet “scientists” refuse to acknowledge this basic problem. They continue to deny the scientific basis for creation and a global flood, while all around them the evidence shows that the only way for fossils to develop would be to do so in floods. So, you see, it doesn’t really matter what the current or past rate of sedimentation is, because animals begin to decompose within a few days — far too fast for any sedimentation, other than flood or mud. And who can say with certainty how much mud a local flood deposited at any point in time. Think of the mud slides that happen in California and other places. How much mud is deposited during those? It’s enough to destroy houses, so each mud slide could likely deposit several inches of mud. And these can happen more than once a year.

Did you know that the “fossil column” that is shown in all the science books doesn’t exist anywhere in the world? In some of the fossil columns that exist, the idealized order is reversed in some areas. So “science” then declares that this segment of earth (some of these places are huge, involving an area at least a mile high and a mile wide) must have somehow been dislodged from its proper spot and tumbled over onto its head, and was then covered over by more sediment in the intervening millions of years. But there isn’t one hint of evidence anywhere to show activity this massive. The only “evidence” is the dogmatic belief in evolution.

Having been raised to believe the Bible, I don’t give evolutionists any credence. Having been educated in a Christian school whose science textbooks presumed the Bible to be true, I was taught the fallacies of evolution, and the lack of a scientific basis. However, this upbringing did not give much scientific basis for creation or the flood, except for the fact that the only alternative (evolution requiring millions and/or billions of years) was scientifically untenable. So I was pleased to find a website which supplied that which was lacking: The Center for Scientific Creation. In addition to exposing the many scientific faults with evolution (most of these are admitted by scientists which believe in evolution, simply because the only alternative is creation, which they reject), this website provides a scientific basis for creation, and also for the flood. It really is a fascinating theory. I’m quite certain that it is not 100% accurate or infallible, yet it is quite amazing. It solves most of the problems that “science” has with the world as we know it, and shines a spotlight on many of the problems that the theory of evolution creates for scientists who cling to it.