Jerry
Sorry for the long delay. I think I remember the talk we had online had something to do with God/evolution/creation/Bible, and at one point even starting penning a response to you then. I guess my mind just left it, not sure why I remembered it now. But here it goes. By the way, by no means am I trying to evangelize or anything, just making a case for my faith to a friend who I really have and do think a lot about.
First, I want to let you know that I take a Biblical point of view. What that means in laymen’s terms is that I believe that the Bible is 100% accurate, and I believe every word of it, right down the cross of the T and the dot of the I. Now I know that in previous discussions, you had said that you hadn’t discovered anyone like that and that all the Bible theologians you know would never claim that—in fact they may see that view as nonsense. Well, I guess all I can say is that we hang out with different people. For the pastors that I spend time with and have been trained by, it is my belief that all ministers and all pastors should indeed take this view, and if they fail to take this view and instead bend the meanings of the scriptures, then they are opening up their lives to the condemnations listed in the book of Revelation that is addressed specifically to those who fail at full belief.
The next asterisk I want to throw out there prior to my response, is that I absolutely admit that there are things written in the Bible that are beyond my human, and perhaps any human understanding. Christ is a lion and a lamb, how is that possible? He is the beginning and the end? Again, how can that be? How can both God be predestining the roles of mankind at the same time mankind having free will to choose God? Those appear to be non-recconcilable (if that’s even a word). It’s almost like I serve a God that cannot be made up by man because of these seeming unanswerable debates. Yet, I believe the Bible to be true, and believe that with God all these things I listed in this paragraph are not only possible, but absolutely right. So Jim, I am not asking you to accept these beliefs as your own. I only you recognize them as mine so you know where I am coming from. In high school, both of us were a bit crazy. I was a 6 year veteran of the polar bear club and you shot putted in a major track meet after having been up all night while still wearing the bow-tie. So it shouldn’t really be all the crazy for you to believe that my faith is so strong in something since you have seen my commitment to craziness first hand over the years.
Lastly, I want to keep my comments solely on evolution. I know evolution debates can end up in discussions about atheism, but as of yet you have not said that is your belief or that you had any specific believe. My intentions are not going to be some back door attempt to convert you to a relationship with Christ, but they are to clarify where I am coming from so at the very least you will read this and say to yourself, “Well, I think Tom may be crazy, but what is not crazy is how strong he believes it. He really believes it, and at least I can admire that.” Make sense?
1. THE ISSUE OF THE FOSSILS: Specifically, when a fossil is found, we really don’t know that much. If we find a fossil of a gopher, all we really know is that the animal is a gopher and that the gopher died right where we found him. We really do not know if the gopher was once a weasel, or if that weasel was once an anteater. We find a weasel or an anteater nearby the gopher, but then again, if we think scientifically, all we really know once again is that it is a weasel and a gopher and that they died there. Now, if there was a scientific test that could alter one specie to another specie (macro-evolution), and that the test was scientifically defined to make this alteration happen by “accident,” then one could make an argument the DNA of a specie could be changed (and I am not talking about a moth gaining pepper spots—its still a moth, I am talking macro, that the moth becomes a red robin). I am also not talking about a human engineered specie that is unable to reproduce like a mule. For macro, we would need to see:
A. A birth of an entirely different specie without any human interference.
B. That new specie randomly finding another of that new specie that just happens to be of the opposite gender.
C. Both the female and male version of that new specie be able to reproduce.
But if we had the above, and in my opinion we do not have that in a macro-large change, we would still need to see that new specie evolve into yet another new specie and have the process repeated. If we had that, then we would have a little tiny slither of evidence that could be used to verify evolution (I know some evolution people say that have this, but whenever I ask specifically, I am always given micro-evolution examples. OR, they say it happens over millions of years). Okay, but we have been studying this theory for about 150 years now and have a better grasp on animal species that any other civilization ever—so I say it should have happened already in our lifetime. And since the fact it has not, I say there is an absence of proof on this.
Besides, most of the fossils we have are from aquatic life, very few if any at all are actually of animals (when compared to the millions of fossils). Moreover, since it takes an immediate sequestering from decay in order to be fossilized, I believe the high number of fossils all found within the same time sequence points much more to a rapid burial of carcasses by a catastrophic event than anything else.
2. THE T-REX EXAMPLE: Here is a random sample of how I believe fossil records are misinterpreted. I could go to a public library, click on a computer, and find not hundreds, but thousands of books on the T-Rex. Maybe tens of thousands? I believe that a lot of what is written about T-Rex’s are probably right. But the truth is we just don’t know. How many T-Rex’s have we actually dug up? Parts of 7. Only 7. So what do we know? Well, we know that T-Rex’s existed and where they died. We honestly don’t know how they died. You and I were told the ice age. Just recently I read a study that they were done in by their own farting. How they died is just theory…which is not fact. We are also told that the T-Rex were enormous hunters and were vicious killers. I could see from studying the jawbone how that conclusion could be drawn. But, if the eyes are studied, one would conclude that since their eyes are on the sides, that they more than likely were a prey animal like 99% of other prey animals (God put the eyes of the predator in the front to help them hide, and God put the eyes of the prey animal on the side to be on the alert—for the most part). When we study their legs, we notice that they have these two flabby upper arms that would make hunting an awful idea for these beasts. Seriously, animals like us humans that move on two feet fall down, we fall a lot more than dogs do. If a T-Rex fell, his arms would not be able to halt his crash and the distance would kill him instantly because of how hard his head would hit the ground. So here we have all these stories and Jurassic Park movies about the T-Rex, and every single one could be false.
I mean, we have a pet bearded dragon. And what is his favorite food? Lettuce. This beast that can crack crickets in half like a saltine cracker goes ape-nuts for lettuce. If all we had in the world was 7 fossils of bearded dragons…what would the odds be that a scientist would correct diagnose that their food of choice was lettuce? No way. So in my opinion, “science” is not diagnosing the fossil record, “historical science” is diagnosing it. We are using the opinions of other people plus fossils to build conclusions. Is there anything wrong with this process? I don’t know, but it does lead people in my opinion to push aside other opinions that do hold viable pieces of credibility.
The correct assertion as to the life of the T-Rex would be that there are multiple conclusions and our knowledge of them is non-definitive. Through in the discovery of the red-blood cells found in the scraped dinosaur bones (I know there is some theorized answer, but even that is unproven…the honest answer is that we really have no idea how an animal that existed 65 Million years ago could be found having red blood cells in the fossil). Unless of course the animal didn’t exist 65 million years ago.
3. EXPLANATION OF HISTORICAL SCIENCE: We cannot prove that Thomas Jefferson existed using only science. We can prove that Monticello was made, we can prove that there is a body in Jefferson’s tomb, but unless we have DNA of his life, science alone cannot honestly prove the existence of TJ. So how do we look at it? Well, we look at the writings, the debates, the Presidential record, the Louisiana Purchase. Why do we look at these? Because these documents, combined with science, give us the accurate picture. It would take BOTH science AND history to prove the existence and remains of Thomas Jefferson.
In another example, the birth home and deathbed of Jesse James resides in Kearney, MO. A handful of years ago, there was some controversy as to whether or not it was really him who was buried in his grave (don’t ask me why it really matters). After digging him up, they checked some dental records (along with some historical documents as his size and other physical merits), and discovered that it was indeed his body. So what? Well, in order to positively ID him, it took BOTH science (the teeth remains) and history (the dental records) to prove it.
So, according to science, a fossil void of additional historical fact, is only that—a fossil. What has been written about the creation of the world over the last 50 years has predominately been from an old earth point of view which has been built on top of multiple assumptions.
Honestly, if we throw out both theories (old earth and young earth), when engravings of what appears to be of a stegosaurus long before one gets excavated, then the drawings stand by themselves as either something the people had seen or something mythological that they had created. If we throw out both theories, then when a woman scientist accidently cuts into the leg of a dinosaur and reveals red blood cells, then the findings stand by themselves and do not need some clever concocted explanation.
I say all of this only to point out that the theory of evolution deals primarily in the arena of “historical science.” And since writings are not available to show support (since historical science DOES require writings/history in order to be accurate), then in my opinion what is being taught to every juvenile from the 4th-12th grade in public education has a great potential of either being way off base or even completely wrong.
4. MASS EXTINCTIONS. There are many episodes of mass extinctions that did take place as evidence through the fossil record (specifically, a whole bunch of fossils being found together simultaneously). The number of these mass extinctions grave extraditions vary based upon the scientist. These, according to the geologists that name the multiple ages, state that these happen from the late Precambrian through the late Neogene ages. My understanding is that the number of mass-extinctions that have been classified is less than 10 (I read by one scientist that classifies 17 but many stated around 8). The greatest of these is the catastrophe that occurred at the end-Permian in which somewhere around 75% of amphibians, 80% of reptiles, many species in the oceans, and supposedly all the dinosaurs were wiped out. I know many geologists state that this is the meteor-crash-incident and some even label the location to be in Chicxulub, Mexico (that’s the spot with the 100 mile or so long crater). Why not a flood? Genesis talks about the waters coming from in and above the earth (a lot of people get the idea that it rained only). There tends to be tales from just about every ancient culture of a flood, I believe that the fossil record when examined by any neutral source, would agree that there was one. And even the textbooks themselves state that there were periods of mass extinction. I study it as science+history=accuracy. And in this case the history comes from the scriptures.
The fact that the specific size of the arc itself is placed in the scriptures lends enormous credibility to the accuracy of the text. How could a man living in the desert, randomly come up with the proportion of such a vessel having never lived near water? And when that vessel was remade in modern times (more than once), the makers found the modern arc to be essentially unflappable and unsinkable. The random odds of a desert wanderer coming up with that by himself would be remarkable to say the least.
5. THE APE ANCESTOR ARGUMENT. The facts are that almost every scientific discovery made on either fossils of people or apes are done not from the actual fossil but instead from a cast, a book, a photo, or other non-primary sources. I understand how severely limited the fossil records are so I am not saying we should cut up and trash the evidence we have, I am just stating as an English major that my papers in advanced rhetorical writing would have been tossed up by my college professors when using non-primary sources.
When it comes to comparing the man to ape, most scientists use the comparison of how similar our DNA and jawbone line happen to be. I have to agree that they are similar. However, if one specie has 22 pairs of DNA and another has 23 pairs…well…the last time I checked..that’s NOT a match right? And whenever a human is born with an extra DNA particle, it causes down syndrome which by no stretch of the imagination makes the person more advanced as the theory of evolution seems to imply. I also find a major problem with comparing the jawbones. The problem of declaring the ape found in the fossils to be a human ancestor on the basis of them having similar teeth lines, is that there are current families of apes and baboons that have similar jawbones as modern man. Baboons for example have small canines, small incisors and decently sized molars like a human. But you won’t find me or anyone else taking that girl to prom. Besides, if we compared the eye socket or the length of the chin as a single comparison like evolution people tend to compare the jawbone, then we would rule out any type of similarities whatsoever as both of those features show massive differences between the two species. If we add that are hipbones work way differently, and the fact that apes need to swing their arms in order to bipedal (walk upright on two legs) like humans, well…I just think that the overwhelming scientific data is that we are different, have been different, and will always be different. One specie a man created in God’s image, and the other an animal with social and physical functioning, but void of a soul.
One additional argument I have is about the forgeries and fakes that have occurred. Nebraska Man? Piltdown Man? Neanderthal, the most famous of all the pics we examined in science class has been down graded by some scientists as non-human (last time I checked, Neanderthal was now classified Homo neanderthalensis). Though other scientists state that Neanderthal is absolutely human, many of which suffer from severe arthritis. Could it be that the downgrading of Neanderthal by some is an attempt to simply state that Neanderthal is the coveted missing link since one cannot be found to substantiate the claim? I may be too bold in that assertion, but is it possible? I understand that extraordinarily large amount of money that will be received by the person who can find a missing link, but if I was on the evolution side—I would be extremely angry at many of the false discoveries and phony interpretations. Even the great “peppered moth” experiment ends poorly when one discovers that the peppered moth lived in the canopies of the trees the whole time and is a phony made up by a scientist who cashed in on the “discovery” (read into that one some time, it’s fascinating…I didn’t know it was a fraud until I did a little research in able to write this memo to you).
6. OTHER SCIENTISTS WHO STAND ON THE SHORT EARTH THEORY OUTSIDE OF CHRISTIANITY. One of the most distinguishing differences between the two theories of where people came from is that one grants the other the opportunity to prove itself while the other brushes off all legitimate questions by stating bias. Meaning, if a Christian says creation, the atheist says that is bias. Isn’t the atheist biased as well in favor of evolution? And over the years, there are tons and tons of non-Christians who have stated that the date of the earth is somewhere between 4000-6000 years and they have nothing to do with Christianity: John Jackson, E. Greswell, E. Faulstich, Frank Klassen, Dolen, quite honestly…every scientific exploration done from Julius Africanus in the year 240 to about the year 1900 estimated the earth was that age. Were they biased? Is Eusebius way off? It could be said “there is no way to get anything scientifically accurate back then and now science is much better.” Okay, I agree with that. But, the men of old working off of no existing data figured out the effective calendar systems, so there has to be some credibility given to it. What changed? Not the evidence. What changed was the added assumption of evolution as fact, which I have stated earlier, effects conclusions. I may not be wording things perfectly well in this paragraph. My conclusion is that scientific men who neither were Christian nor were given the theory the evolution (no bias either way) correctly asserted the age of the earth by studying the fossil record.
7. NAMES MATTER. One of the descendents of Noah is Aram, and out of his seed we get the Aramic language. Cush was a descendent, and some people in Ethiopia still call themselves Cushites for Cush was the name of their nation for centuries. Madai is where we get the name Medes which has a close association with the Persians. Askenaz is another descendant and still makes up the Hebrew word for Germans. Gomer (Galacia, Gaul) are old names for the regions between Turkey, France, NE Spain, Gomeraeg (also from Gomer) is the old name of the Welsh language, Javan is still the Hebrew name for Greece, Mechech is the old name for Moscow, Canaan still means Canaan, we get the Elamites from Elam, Assyria from Asshur, Tarshish is now the mountain range in Turkey as well as the old name of a river system the flowed into the Black Sea, should I go on? Jim, even if someone was to doubt the existence of a worldwide flood (and I know that most scientists don’t do that—even evolution people state that there was a worldwide catastrophe involving water), how in the world did the names for the descendants of Noah end up becoming geological places all over Europe and the Middle East? If the Bible was fictional and void of scientific data that could not be used, then it wouldn’t be so accurate. Remember, I am an English major at heart, so I have taken my studies in lexocography, and every single professor who has ever studied the histories of language or geological naming would never rule out the accuracy of the Bible’s names as luck.
8. WHAT DID DARWIN SAY? Let’s take a look at some of his own words…
"There are two or three million species on earth. A sufficient field one might think for observation; but it must be said today that in spite of all the evidence of trained observers, not one change of the species to another is on record." (Life and Letters, Volume 3, page 25)
"I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion out of them!” (seems to me that even Darwin saw people denying God was sort of like a faith with a religious fervor attached to it)
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down (Origin of Species, 154).”
“For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of the equation….(if Darwin was open for the debate on creation, why is it closed today?).
DID YOU KNOW: That Darwin writes the phrase “we may suppose” over 800 times in the Origin of Species? (Since when does science base decisions on suppositions rather than fact?)
DID YOU KNOW: That the original title of Darwin’s book was On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. (and this is years before the Nazi’s or even the euthanasia studies of the 1910’s…how can a book with a variable such as “favored races” in its own title be considered credible? If he is coming from the background that favored races exist, than that already alters the outcome of the conclusion).
Yeah, I know I am being picky. And being honest I am not qualified enough on Darwin to say that anything I just said above was all that scientific. In a public debate on Darwin I would get massacred. But my point is that most people who quote him know even less then I could dig up. That should count for something.
9. TIMING OF THE CHANGES.
If random selection is true, if Darwinism is true, than I believe that the fossil record would reveal tons of gradual change, as one species slowly alters itself (thus eliminating itself) into another (remember, I am not debating micro-evolution here). Moreover, if this really is the case, it should also be very hard to tell where one species ends and the other begins because the fossils would be overlapping. For example, if one million lives of Animal #1 became one million lives of Animal #2, then there would be fossil evidence of the transition. But that’s just not the case.
Again, don’t take my word for this, take Darwin’s. He states, “The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, {must} be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graded organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.”
Darwin said that statement, most likely feeling like people would see this inherent weakness, and piece the missing puzzle pieces together to make a stronger argument over the course of time. But time has not been good to Darwin in this measure.
10. A GREAT ARGUMENT AGAINST THE EXISTANCE OF A CREATOR. You can imagine as I take my stance on the Bible, that I have heard some perplexing arguments against the existence of a creator, and in this particular case the existence of the God in the Bible. Some questions are really simple and can easily be answered. Some questions are quite dumb, as one would get occasionally in any argument regardless of the topic. And some questions are pretty dog gone serious in my opinion. And one of the best questions has to be “Why would a loving God allow so many bad things to happen?” That question can be furthered 1000 different ways and still have the same meaning. Why would someone’s dad get killed by a drunk driver? Why did that good girl get AIDS? Why does someone’s mom have an incurable disease—after all—isn’t God a God of healing? And this woman is a believer—why wouldn’t God heal them? Why do babies die?
There are many answers to that question, the best one being the most honest one—I really don’t know. I mean, we do live in a fractured world because of sin. We do have free will to make good and bad decisions and sometimes those bad decisions wind up hurting people in awful ways. But none of that explains why babies die.
But, from the opinion of a father who has lost a child (not trying to use this as an emotional plug here…you may not have known by my wife and I buried a child in 2009), I suppose I could look at the answer two different ways. I could say, “that’s too bad, but since we are all technically accidents through random selection, then my deceased infant son was just the weak part of the evolutionary food chain and couldn’t make it.” Or, I could look to the Bible where King David mentions that his deceased son has gone ahead of him to heaven and will await for him until then. Since I don’t believe the folklore but believe it to be the God’s honest truth, then not only do I believe that my son Joshua is in heaven but 100% fully know that he is there. I cannot tell you how reassuring that is not just to me, but also to my wife, and my five living children who know someday if they too are in Christ they will see Joshua in heaven.
This may be off the topic to mention here, but this is where most of the attacks received to Christians by people who strongly believe in evolution are pretty insulting to the Christian (though the evolution believer never really understands this). You have always had a soft heart for the underpriviledged, so let me try to explain it to you (just so in future debates on this issue with other people you could have a “handle with care” attitude a bit if you so desire). See, if a Mom believes that her infant son is in heaven because the Bible tells her so, and someone from the evolution side says there is no God, then indirectly the Mom is being told that she is never going to see her baby son.
If I was an evolution guy who also wasn’t sure of the afterlife, I don’t feel like it would be my place to tell anyone what they believed about an afterlife was wrong. Since I scientifically could NOT prove it, I think I would be the sickest person in the world to take that hope away from a parent. As a minister, I sometimes talk with parents who have had their children die, sometimes I hear the phrase, “my little girl is an angel now.” Technically, there is nothing in the Bible stating that people become angels and as I read the scriptures, it is clearly indicated that angels and humans are both creations and are separate entities. However, I don’t feel it is my place or time to correct a parent who is still recovering from such an emotional episode.
11. WHY DOES IT MATTER TO THE CHRISTIAN ANYWAY? Here is a decent question. Let’s say that a person believes a man named Jesus died on the cross so that when Tom Papez dies and stands before God, Jesus will take the punishment for my sins rather than myself. Okay, we both know that is what the Christian believes (or is supposed to believe, if they don’t, they are probably just a Christian in name only). So why would it matter how the world was created anyway? I mean, does the person who has Jesus in their heart really care anyway? Who really cares about such a detail?
First, I want to point out that it is entirely true to be a Christian and believe what our science teachers have told us about evolution. Jim, I will answer this question on my behalf only, just so as you talk with people about this over the coming years you understand why it is such a big deal to so many believers. See, according to the scriptures, God shed the blood of the first animal in the Garden of Eden to cover for man’s sin (the whole eating the fruit from the tree deal). So, if there existed billions (or even thousands or weeks) of years of animals living and dying before Adam and Eve’s sin, than God’s “atonement” is destroyed. And since “atonement” lies at the whole reason for Christ dying on the cross, you can see why there would be a philosophical argument. Paul states in Romans 5:12 that “through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin.”
Putting it another way, if God really did created people/life/animals/everything over billions of years, then he has misled people for centuries into believing that he did it in six days, which is honestly really dishonest. So to people like me, the issue of evolution versus creation takes on a whole new meaning…the character of God. Now, does the new believer dig in this deep philosophically? No. Does the average member of my congregation dig in like that? No. But in all honesty, if we are to dig in the scriptures as commanded by Christ, all believers should eventually come to the same conclusion (I know this point borders on the absurdity for you—remember, I am not using this point to prove my case or anything like that—just to give you an understanding on why it is such a big deal to the believer, that’s all). Cool?
*By the way, there are ZERO Precambrian fossils. I find that as evidence that things: either didn’t die yet, weren’t around yet, or nothing decayed yet. From my Biblical point of view, you can guess which one of three I stand on. This is not coming from me or my opinion, but from Dawkins when he states, “For example, the Cambrian strata of rocks…are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history (italics added). That quote comes from “Punctured Punctionalism.”
12. LIFE FROM NO LIFE. On the other hand, I often wonder why an evolutionary scientist would fight against creation so harshly. Point blank, science and the Bible are not in conflict. The fossil is the same to the evolutionist and the creationist. Again, I think the fight in and of itself proves the evolutionary bias that is inherent in the argument.
For this example, lets look at Pasteur and his findings. When studying the “spontaneous generation of life” which is the crux issue of evolution, he put his tests under vacuums, semi-vacuums, and tons of different laboratory experiments. The idea that life can be created out of nothing is utter foolishness according to him. Moreover, the idea that life could be created from a decaying life was also shattered in his studeis. Today, no reputable scientist anywhere defends the idea of an abrupt life from nothing concept model with anything that can be backed up by science—but yet it makes the crux of the entire evolution argument.
See, either life evolved by accident or it did not. You know how this works. If either A or B, if not A, then B. That’s a simple formula. So if life either (A) DID evolve by accident or (B) DID arrive through creation, by scientifically proving that life (A) DID NOT evolve by accident, then (B) life DID arrive through creation, is a plausible answer. I know it is highly probably you may not accept my use of this philosophical term as I have used them here. But philosophy says this is a solid argument. Even Dawkins says there is no way to explain how life arrived by itself but he chooses to believe in it anyway. I mean, even the ardent man of evolution thought has to give at least a 1% shot to the argument that we were created. And because that 1% is possible, then why fight the idea of creation so harshly?
Listen to the atheist Dr. George Wald on this. He states, “One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are - as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.”
I would say that Dr. Wald is a man of great FAITH on this endeavor. Whether one believes in evolution or creation, they do so as a matter of FAITH, not science—there are just too many open windows to it. And since faith cannot be measured by science, then why does someone who presents FAITH in the Bible have their opinions outweighed by someone who has FAITH in random spontaneous generation?
13. WHAT THE BIBLE STATES. This is where I will throw you for a loop and you will fully believe that your past shotputting buddy is now clearly off his rocker. But I believe that the Bible provides the historical data to make not just the fossil record relative, but life relative, meaningful, and above all else—eternal. But since I believe that the Bible is 100% accurate, even difficult things that can be interpreted only through faith, I wanted to give you an example of how I go through an interpretation (I am not making an argument in this section, just providing an example of how I read it—and to be honest, how most pastors read it—or at least should read it).
Take this verse in the book of Job chapter 40, it reads “Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox. What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron.”
I read this, and my mind begins to wonder, what animal is God talking about? What description is that? Is that an elephant? I rule that out because that doesn’t match the phrase “muscles in his belly.” An alligator? But that doesn’t feed on grass like an ox. Because my mind cannot wrap around it, I look down at the description written at the bottom of my Bible. Now, while reading this, I have to take into account that it will be written by a man, from a man’s opinion. There is a good chance it will be right, but it may not, for the meaning of the scriptures supercedes a man’s opinion of it.
So the description on the bottom of the NIV Bible states, “Job is invited to consider the behemoth, usually considered to be the hippopotamus. The Lord’s point is this: Since I made both the behemoth and you, Job, and you cannot control even this fellow creature, how dare you think of usurping My place!”
Now, my decision will be whether to agree or disagree with that interpretation (it is just an interpretation). Most of the time I do agree with the interpretations, or at least give the commentary the benefit of the doubt. In this case I do not. If Job, who had just lost everything known to him was receiving a lesson about God’s power, why would the Lord instruct him to look at a disgusting hippo sitting somewhere in a pond? Moreover, does a hippo have “close-knit thighs?” No. Are the hippos have bones like tubes of bronze? No. Does the hippos tail sway like a cedar? The last time I checked, a hippos tail is weak, and quite honestly pretty much sucks when compared to tails of other strong animals. So I rule out this writer’s opinion and continue my search.
Then, when I see cave and pyramid drawings of the stegosaurus in India and in China prior to any archeological excavation of dinosaurs, I rule that God absolutely brought Job before a dinosaur.
Remember, I am not using this point to convince you of anything. I am only using this example so you can comprehend where my point of view and interpretation comes from. I am not asking you to accept what I am saying—I don’t think you will and that’s okay. But that is the process my mind went through when switching my opinion from an evolution to creation mindset over the course of years. There are other like-minded stories in the Bible that reach for and receive the same conclusion, but this one will be used as an example for clarity purposes.
14. WHAT ARE THE ODDS?
What are the odds that 29 kings listed in the Old Testament all match up with the writings of secular historians (the RD King investigation)?
Doesn’t it seem odd that when accuracy is checked of the chronological examination of kings that the Bible was proven more accurate than Library of Alexandria (the RD King investigation)?
How the heck was Luke (the author of Luke) able to accurately label 32 countries, 54 cities, & 9 islands dead on without error (archeologist Sir William Ramsey who was an atheist during the compilation)?
How is it possible the Israelites were able to have complete rules on self-sanitation including the use of running water and rules on separation of bodily discharge prior to Pasteur’s principles detailing cleanliness given during the 19th Century (I don’t think it’s by chance as many Egyptian remedies included the use of animal dung)?
Why were priests ordered to burn the clothes of leprosy victims when everyone believed it was a human illness (we know now that leprosy can survive outside of the host for three weeks)? How in the world did the priests with no medical background whatsoever get that so right?
Hyssop oil was mandated to be used by Moses in accordance with Numbers 19. So what? Well, we find out in the 20th Century that Hyssop is 50% anti-fungal naturally. Isn’t that amazing?
The shape of the earth is clearly in the Bible when Isaiah 40:22 states, “He who sits upon the circle of the earth….” What are the odds that 700 B.C. would correctly have the shape of our world accurate (by the way, those people who stated that people felt the earth was flat because of the Bible have been phony on this for years…I am not sure how that urban legend began, but priests never taught that). Again, how does someone random guess the shape of the earth if not God inspired?
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states, “that all systems degenerate from order to disorder” as quoted by Einstein (relax, I am not going to use this argument to slam evolution because that is done so commonly…although I could use it that). Instead, let me use it to point out something else. Isaiah 51:6 states, “For the heavens will vanish away like smoke, the earth will grow old like a garment.” So, how did the Bible correctly identify our world’s ultimate movement towards disorder as in stated in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics by chance? By chance? That would be an unbelievable set of guessing to get that correct without a Godly inspired notion.
Job 36:27-28 states, “For he draws up drops of water, which distill as rain from the mist, which the clouds drown down and pour abundantly on man.” Wow. What are the odds of the Bible randomly explaining in detail the hydrologic cycle by accident? I just don’t believe it’s possible for all of these to happen randomly. It’s all too perfect. Ecclesiastes 1:7 goes into great detail about the evaporation of the seas and rivers and the following refilling as well. Again, this is impossible to guess at and get right in my opinion.
One of the more amazing findings I ever read came from NASA’s Ames Research Center confirmed that every element in man can be found in the soil. What? Jim, I am not kidding on this. The source is Reader’s Digest, November of 1982, the article goes into great length before providing this quote said by the scientist which states, “the biblical scenario for the creation of life turns out to be not far off the mark.”
The following one is unbelievable, Job 38:31 states, “Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, Or loose the belt of Orion?” Okay, at first glance, that’s not a big deal since astronomy was well known in that day. But, when you add in that astrophysicists now know that the stars in the Pleiades are gravitationally bound together while the stars in the Orion are independently moving…well…what are the odds of that being accurate? In my opinion, for Job to have correctly stated that the Pleiades are bundled and Orion is independent by random chance is just impossible.
Before the telescope was invented in 1608, scientists had the number of stars counted, Ptolemy had it at under 3000 and the number didn’t mutate much from that. The world for thousands of years laughed at the stupid Christians who believed there were countless as Jeremiah 33:22 said so. Who was right?
Jim, I could go into thousands of more examples like these above. I really could spend the next year of my life simply listing all the amazing facts presented in the Bible and proven to be accurate by science. The same science you and I look to for laws and precision about the physical world around us. But I shouldn’t have to do that. It’s been said that a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. And I know us both too well that the only person to convince Tom Papez is Tom Papez and the only person to convince Jim Bruckner is Jim Bruckner. But, what are the odds? And in this scenario, I haven’t even touched archeology, the language accuracies, or even the tremendous odds of the prophecies.
15. PERSONAL CONCLUSION
Jim, I guess I just wanted to close by stating thanks for taking the time to look at all the above information that you probably don’t agree with but out of respect for me and out of respect for our friendship have taken the time to read. I know neither of us are really looking into a long term debate (neither of us have time for that). And I give you permission to use the information above as a punch line of a joke at any cocktail party you would attend. “Hey guys, you won’t believe this, but I have this high school friend who actually believes everything the Bible states right down to the dot of the I. He says there was a flood, a Red Sea crossing, a crucified savior, and now believes that a man named Jesus actually does live in his heart through some spiritual sense.”
I understand how coming from a certain point of view how that could be amusing. But when the laughter dies down, please let them know that though you feel Tom’s ideas may be crazy, that you respect his decision to believe them and not just out of blind faith but out of a critical analysis. Please also mention that Tom also has stayed true to his wife for their 17 years of marriage thus far, have 5 kids whose lives he is really involved in, and though he is stubborn as a mule like his early years, that he does exemplify the classic All-American dad that may have been found on the Leave it to Beaver show and that somehow there is something good about that.
-Tom
PS: If you ever happen to be in St. Louis and want to watch a ballgame and eat some wings, let me know. Also, my discus thrower did win back to back state championships with a remarkable 187 and I am still pumped about that (he is at U. of Wisconsin now…sweet). For the record, because I value your friendship and always will, I didn’t just do a cut & paste as is the current custom with modern debates, I took the time to write everything myself.