Divine Scripture Cannot Be Wrong

Divine Scripture Cannot Be Wrong

Divine Scripture Cannot Be Wrong

I have been excited recently to pick up cuttings from our
media that speak at last on behalf of Divine creation, which of course is the
only logical explanation for our being here. I remember some years ago
travelling on a bus in the Middle East when a doctor who was on our tour,
stopped along side my seat and said to me, "Barry, the biggest proof of Divine
Creation is the human body. Everything had to be created at once otherwise the
human being could not exist."

We print herewith in full a lovely article taken from the
Christchurch Press, 10 February 2001, Divine Scripture cannot be wrong.

"Some notable points have been rased by Simon Pollard's
article in the Press (February 3) concerning special creation and its
unsuitability to be taught in schools.

His words were echoed over 140 years ago by those who were
alarmed by the publication of Darwin's The Origin of Species. A bishop's
wife was alleged to have said, "I hope that Mr Darwin's views will not
become generally known."

Indeed, they have become almost universally accepted as
proven scientific fact, largely supported by an ignorant, or perhaps a myopic,
media.

But are we just like animals, albeit more highly adapted, as
numerous nature documentaries portray? This concept, which reduces men and women
to mere brutes forever bound by their base instincts and for which they are not
accountable, is both repugnant and false.

Evolution is now, and has been for some decades, a theory in
crisis. An unprovable, untenable fairytale for adults which refuses to die.
Undoubtedly, evolution is a belief not a science, which is why it is so
pernicious and defended so unquestioningly by those who seek to describe a world
coming into being without God.

St Thomas Aquinas has said, "The first reaction to truth is
often anger."

Anger at the truth exposed by empirical science which, by
definition, is based on observation or experiment, not on theory.

But what of this science that disproves evolution? Does
science prove that all of nature comes from intelligent design by and omniscient
designer, ie, God?

Science is able to show that special creation took place.
Nevertheless, evolutionists refuse to acknowledge the basic immutable laws of
nature which uphold this.

Such as, only life begets life and entrophy; and that all
created things are decaying.

Obstinacy is their only consistency, as they switch back and
forth, searching for another hypothesis, on the hairpin highway of evolutionism.

One of the most recent discoveries concerning creation and
evolution is that of DNA which has conclusively ruled out the possibility of
evolution occurring.

Studies of the DNA structure shows that it is impossible for
it to alter transgenically (between species); it is a set code for each species.
A designer code, which permits variation within species, but not in kind. The
DNA mismatch between humans and chimpanzees has been shown, in the trillions of
humans cells, to be at least 30 million per cell -– a gap impossible to cross.

Evolutionists, however, insist that it must occur, yet the
mechanism for this is entirely missing (the real missing link).

The fossil record is also particularly damning for evolution.
I agree there are billions of pieces in the fossil record which have been used
to advance this theory, but there is not one shred of conclusive evidence that
proves evolution from one species to another ever took place ("...each created
in their own species" -– Genesis).

It is all conjecture, which is fine if you wish to believe
it, but empirical science must be based on observable, objective proof, not
faith.

Perhaps the palaeontologists will dig some proof up soon, I
hope so for their sake and the sake of evolution.

Yet they have been digging for over 120 years all over the
world and have not found one intermediate species that crosses the barrier from
one kind to another.

This is a salient point. There is much variation within
species, but not a shred of evidence of a transgenic mutation. That is dogs are
always dogs, whales are always whales, and fish are always fish. Not horses,
birds, or men.

All of the ape-men ever discovered have been later proven to
be entirely human, entirely animal, or outright frauds.

The excavations have, however, established powerful evidence
for the flood of Noah occurring with the discovery of the rapid deaths of
hundreds of thousands of creatures trapped in vast death pits and covered with
immense layers of sedimentary strata covering three-quarters of the earth.

This is consistent with a global catastrophe and unmistakable
proof of the biblical account of the flood.

No, the Bible is not a scientific textbook but authentic
science is beginning to understand some of the processes involved which are
described in brief in the Bible.

Belief in an all-powerful God accepts that He is without
error and through whom all of Scripture is divinely inspired via the hands of
the many writers.

It follows that there is no error inherent in Scripture and
we are therefore bound to believe it and to seek the truths that are contained
therein which relate to, in this case special creation.

Our children deserve to be presented with the whole truth."
End Quote.

And then later another article was sent to me dated, 5
February 2001, from the Evening Post, Ex-Wgt man's book on evolution popular.

"A book written by former Wellingtonian Jonathan Sarfati,
which aims to refute the theory of evolution, has proved popular in Australia
and the United States.

There are now 25,000 copies of Refuting Evolution in print,
some also being available in England and New Zealand.

Described as a handbook for students, parents and teachers,
it was first published in the United States and Australia in 1999.

Dr Sarfati said many books on evolution contrasted
religion-creation opinions with evolution-science facts. "It's important to
realise that this is a misleading contrast. Creationists often appeal to the
facts of science to support their view, and evolutionists often appeal to
philosophical assumptions from outside science."

Dr Sarfati, whose parents live in Karori, studied
mathematics, geology, physics and chemistry at Victoria University, obtaining a
Ph D in physical chemistry in 1995. He has co-authored technical papers on
superconductors and molecules.

A top chess player, he represented New Zealand in three
Olympic ads and is a former national champion. A Christian since 1984, he was
for some years on the editorial committee of Apologia, the journal of the
Wellington Christian Apologetics Society which he co-founded.

Dr Sarfati presently works as a research scientist and
editorial consultant in Brisbane for the Creation Science Foundation.

"The debate between creation and evolution is primarily a
dispute between two world views, with mutually incompatible underlying
assumptions," he said.

Evolutionists since Darwin predicted that the fossil record
would show intermediate forms linking one kind of organism to a different kind.
Instead, argued Dr Sarfati, the fossil record showed that animals appeared
abruptly and fully formed, with only a handful of debatable examples of alleged
transitional forms." End Quote.

Sometimes upon our return home we take our grandchildren up
the hill behind our house and look out across the mountains, the river and the
trees surrounding our property. Always standing in the same spot where we can
see everything clearly we quote the Word of God from John 1:1-4.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
and the word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were
made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was
life, and the life was the light of men"

Not only do we believe in Divine Creation because we are
born-again believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, but also because sensible people
involved in the field of science are beginning to understand that the
evolutionary theory is absolutely without any foundation, and therefore is not
worthy of further consideration.

We quote now from the Gaia Peace Atlas, page 10, where we
read the following:

"Scientist James Lovelock, believing that life on other
planets could be detected by its impact on atmospheric chemistry, turned his
attention to Earth -– and found its atmosphere so "improbable" in
geochemical terms that only some regulatory process could explain it. The 'regulator'
he proposed was life, planetary life as a whole self-regulating organism. He
named this entity Gaia, after the ancient Greek goddess of the Earth..." End
Quote.

Now obviously anybody who chooses not to believe in God finds
that it leaves them with no other alternative and therefore they had to call
this creative force by some name and they used the world 'the regulator'.
And then moving on into the field of mythology and witchcraft he continued on to
use the word Gaia. It is interesting that men who fight against the concept of
God spend all their time trying to work out another name for God, such as Nature
and so on, and yet the word God only has three letters G-O-D, which makes it
very easy to pronounce and also to understand once one humbles himself and
excepts the divine truth.

Anybody who studies the human body is therefore without
excuse for as the Scripture says, "I am fearfully and wonderfully made."