Archive for December, 2005

It is essential for anyone claiming to be a Christian to believe in a literal 6-day creation timeline. Upon that basis rests the entirety of God’s revealed word in the Bible. My employer has recently added a page defending evolution on its website, and I am very disappointed in that move. Evolution cannot speak to origins of life. Since no one was around to record how the earth was created, the only valid understanding of origins is provided in God’s account, as recorded by Moses in Genesis chapters 1 & 2.

The cornerstone of evolutionary theory is that there is no God, or that if He exists, He merely started everything off, perhaps giving some divine guidance along the way, but that natural processes have accounted for the formation, and deformation of life as we know it. Evolution is more than just a way of explaining natural processes. It claims that life can arise from non-life, that mutations can be beneficial and be passed to offspring in such a way as to promote the development of new and better versions of themselves, and that this process has been in place for billions of years. Evolution claims that we are all the product of dumb luck (evolutionists would word it ‘chance’, but it’s the same).

Besides the incredible mathematical improbabilities of every mutation as we see it now having begun with chance interactions of chemicals in some primordial ooze spawning the first form of ‘life’, evolution and its proponents have other bizarre realities to contend with. A prime example is the supposed age of the universe. Based on current estimated rates of expansion, these scientists can claim to calculate the initial time of the universe’s ‘big bang’ at approximately 10-12 billion years ago. Since there are stars 10 billion light-years away, they say, and light travels at a more-or-less constant speed, the light we are seeing now from those stars was first started that many years ago (minus a slight adjustment for the fact that the universe is apparently expanding).

However, if the light we are seeing from these incredibly distant stars is in fact that old, why are we seeing stars near the end of their life spans? Light arriving from those distant objects should show the state of stars near the beginning of their existence, not the end. Yet, the light we are now observing coming from these distant stars, constellations, and galaxies is ‘old’. We should be seeing the early stages of galactic formation, and should be observing more and more stars in an on-going fashion.

Contrasting that position, Christians understand that God created the world in 6 days, resting on the 7th, and the deterioration of the universe is the fault of a single man’s transgression. Evolutionists, and even some claimed Christian theologians, claim that the universe is billions of years old, and that God could not have possibly made the earth, and everything it contains in 6 literal days. The earth, they say, looks too old. But there is a problem with their thinking: no one knows what a ‘young’ earth looks like. We’ve never observed a planet being formed. By merely flipping the time-table around, and saying that things have proceeded in the past as we observe them now, scientists can claim to know how old the earth and universe are.

The laws of thermodynamics, among which state that matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but can only merely be translated into a different form, argue against evolution also. If it is true that matter and energy can not be created or destroyed, then the universe must not have originated in the ‘big bang’, but that it must be eternal. Since everything is in a state of constant decay (observe any chemical or physical process, and how there is loss due to friction, noise, heat, etc), thermodynamics, which scientists claim to believe, bluntly shows that things are not getting better, they’re getting worse.

Scientists who believe in evolution as the source of life merely transpose their faith from an infinite, eternal God who made them in His image, as the crowning element of creation, for whom the universe exists, into a faith in the eternality and infiniteness of space, matter, and time.

My journal entry’s title is important. Without a literal 6-day creation period, Christianity (and Judaism, too) falls apart. When God gave Moses the Ten Commandments, He flatly announced the reason for keeping the Sabbath Day holy: “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” [Ex 20:11]. If the days listed in the creation account in Genesis are not literal days, then the reason given in the fourth commandment for observing the Sabbath is groundless. Previously, in Exodus 16:26, God tells Moses that the people may only gather the manna He miraculously provided for them on the mornings of the 6 days of the week, and could not gather any on the seventh day, since it was the Sabbath, and God was not going to provide food that day. The day previous to it He would provide twice what the people needed, so they would have enough for the next day, but the Sabbath was to be a day of rest. The entire Mosaic Covenant falls apart if the creation week is not literal.

Jesus Himself declared that He was ‘Lord of the Sabbath’, since He was the Son of God. Declaring Himself to be ‘Lord of the Sabbath’ would have been irrational if the creation days are merely figurative and do not reflect accurately the amount of time God spent to create the universe.

God really did make the earth, universe, plants, animals, and mankind in their full forms in 6 days. The ‘evenings’ and ‘mornings’ recorded were not figurative, they were real. Just like days we have now. It has been said that the word ‘day’ or ‘days’ can be taken to mean several different things, such as a 24-hour period, the daylight hours, a period of time (‘in those days’), or a reminiscing (‘back in my day’). However, every time a numerical qualifier is used with the word ‘day’, it indicates a real, honest-to-God day. The repeated use of the phrase, “and there was evening, and there was morning the 1st day” (and 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th) can only lead you to understand that each day is a ‘real’ day.

Another issue that evolutionists have to deal with is the matter of reproduction and maturity. According to the Biblical account, each creature was made and then told to “reproduce after their kind”. When God specially made man on day 6 of the creation week, he told him to “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” God would not have told an infant to “be fruitful and multiply”. He would not have brought “every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens to the man to see what he would call them” if the ‘man’ was an infant and not a ‘man’. Nor would it make any sense to have made a “helper fit for him”: “So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.” Infants don’t need spouses, they need parents! The evolutionist’s solution to this conundrum is that, since life started with single-cell organisms, as those organisms got larger and more complicated, they gradually adapted ways of raising their young. Unfortunately for them, though, many (if not all) single-cell creatures do not reproduce sexually, they just get to a point where they’re too big to continue as one cell, and divide into multiple cells, who then each go their own way. There really is no logical reason for single-celled critters like amoebae to ever evolve into a form that needs to reproduce sexually: their reproductive manner works fine, why change? With the inerrant light of God’s holy word, though, it is obvious that God intended for there to be multiple ways of reproducing, myriad different types (that had the ability to speciate over time), and that mankind did not come from ‘lower’ life forms.

The wholesale rejection of God and His word by modern science is disheartening. Paul, in writing to the Roman believers says in Rom 1:18-23, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.” (emphasis added). God’s astonishing creative diversity is witnessed billions of times a day all over the world. Yet, even with His incredible daily displays of variety, order, uniqueness, and beauty, scientists propound that God did not create the world, that we’re all a giant cosmic experiment, an accident, just one of an infinite number of possibilities that could have been.

Truly, those who espouse belief in evolution have professed themselves to be wise, and yet are fools. God’s word is clear about what will happen to them: “Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator” [Rom 1:24-25] & “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.” [Rom 1:26-32].

Man’s refusal to acknowledge God has led to every form of evil in the world today. Our refusal to believe God’s revealed self has devolved our race into murdering, thieving, lying, coveting, idol-worshipping, adulterous people. God has revealed so much of Himself in creation that no man has an excuse to not believe in Him. But, to shut up their consciences, to make themselves feel good about not believing in God, men have come up with ‘alternate’ theories of how things came to be. Their proclaiming of evolution is an act to appease their minds and consciences. By making other people believe their lie, they feel better about it themselves.

If we really are no better than the animals, laws have no purpose. If we really are just a ‘higher’ life form, societal structure doesn’t matter: there is no right and wrong; there is no crime; it’s an “every man for himself” environment.

But not even the evolutionists really believe that. They may profess to believe the current philosophy du jour, that morals are all relative, and your truth is good for you, and my truth is good for me, but they don’t hold to their professed ideals. Everyone demands justice for acts committed against themselves. They may demand it in different ways, but they all want retribution, vengeance, vindication, justice.

Fortunately, God has provided a way of escape from this enslaving mindset: He sent His Son to die on a cross to pay for our sins and transgressions against Himself. Hebrews 9:22b, “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.” Jesus came and lived a perfect life, proclaimed a perfect kingdom, died a perfect death, offered Himself as a perfect sacrifice, and rose from death never again to die, but having conquered death, has proffered us, fallen humanity, to have the reward of His perfection by giving us eternal, perfect life in fellowship with God.

I pray for those who hold firm to their evolutionary beliefs. I pray that God will open their eyes to see their error, and to believe Him and His perfect word. I don’t want to see these people suffering eternal judgement for their erroneous beliefs and their spreading of such a heinous lie. I want to see them saved, to join the throng worshipping God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit for all eternity with me.

Jay Loden has an interesting journal entry from yesterday (1 Dec 05). Apparently, while in Seattle on a buiness trip, he had the, ahem, priviledge of driving a Chrysler PT Cruiser. I have driven them on a few occasions in the past when I worked for Hertz, and generally agree with him about the layout of the car: it pretty much sucks. Putting the window controls by the radio is dumb. Visibility sucks worse than any sports (or sporty) car I’ve driven other than the Celica and Tiburon. The looks, well, as he points out, if you like ‘em, you like ‘em, and if you don’t, you don’t. I think the car looks like a monkey turd with wheels, but that’s me.

I have to disagree with him, though, on his general statement, “American cars by and large just can’t get a grip on this whole build quality and reliability thing“. While working at Hertz during and after my stint at HVCC, I got to drive almost everything Hertz rented (I also had to drive everything they rented). I found out that I don’t fit well in the Ford Taurus for long periods of time, but that the Escort (while not visually appealing to me) fit me fairly well. This is totally counter-intuitive when you look at me, since I’m a decently-big guy. I’m about 6′1″ and have long legs, so the Taurus should’ve been a better fit (more leg and head room), but the Escort’s seat was better shaped to me.

Outside size of the vehicle, it turns out, doesn’t always correspond 1-1 to inside comfort. The Lincoln LS, for example, is a semi-compact sports sedan. However, the back seat is just about useless to put anyone over 5′3″ into for trips over 30 minutes. I found the driver’s seat quite comfortable, but the front passenger seat leaving something to be desired. I hate the Toyota Avalon, and it’s not just because I dislike most Japanese-make cars (I find them generally unattractive, and set-up weird inside). The Avalon, for all it’s niceties and appointments inside, and it’s decent ride, offered really bad visibility for me. I generally sit with the seat as far back as it will slide (that whole longlegs thing), and the back pretty much upright. Even with these shifts to the seat position, though, I had trouble knowing where stuff was around me. And that was on a lot I drove on 10 hours a day 4 days a week. I’d hate to think how driving it on the highway would have been. On the other hand, any time I’d hop in the big 15-passenger van to clean it, I knew where every corner was, and could put it quite precisely where I wanted it in the lot.

I generally pride myself on knowing how big my vehicle is (important when you want to pass someone on the highway or pull into a parking space), and where it’s performance limitations are to be found (the Lincoln LS sucks in light snow). One of the things the managers, and cleaners and transporters, at Hertz noticed about me very soon after I started there was my comfortability with driving almost everything we had. From little Prisms on up to Excursions, Sportages to Mustangs, Land Rovers to Miatas, I knew where my vehicle was just about all the time, and could back it into any spot it would fit into.

For those who know me, they know I’m a Ford fan. Not everything they make, but a lot of their vehicles. In straight-up comparisons, I’d hasten to point out that cheap Fords – Focuses, etc – have nicer-looking plastic in them than expensive Cadillacs. Don’t ask me why, but GM seems to chince on the plastic. Volvos ride smoothly, have good power (even on the cheap editions Hertz rents), and are comfortable to drive, with good visibility and room inside at least the front. Camrys on the other hand, a very popular car in this country, felt loose on the highway to me. However, the driver’s seat was pretty comfortable on them. They didn’t have a dash set-up I was especially thrilled about, but internally they weren’t too horrible. I hated driving Towncars because you feel like you’re floating when you’re driving – a very disturbing feeling when you’re the driver and want to know you’re still on the road. Compare them to a Grand Marquis or Crown Victoria, and you have the same frame, less expensive internals, but a better feeling of road grip in the ‘lesser’ models.

Jeep Grand Cherokees’ driver’s seats feel like you’re being swallowed into the back, and the dashboard is a garish green that tends to blur, making it hard to read. Pontiacs just suck. There’s no two ways about it, they’re horrible. The dashboard lights are all variations on a theme of red. The warning lights are just different types of red (ooh! or maybe this time it may be orange!). The instrument clusters always look weird, and finding information out about the car, especially if there’s anything wrong with it is difficult.

From my experience with Hertz, I’ve had the opportunity to drive more different types of vehicles than probably anyone else I know outside of fellow Hertz employees. I discovered that Subaru Outbacks don’t do well in the snow. That whole “transferring power from the wheels that slip to the wheels that grip” mantra leaves out the fact that if all four wheels slip, the power stops. Doesn’t matter if you mash down on the gas pedal. It just idles. The wheels are slipping, after all, so why send power to them? I found this out when I managed to beach an Outback in a small snowbank turning to come down the access road to Hertz from the Albany Airport. The wheels quit turning, and the only way to get the car moving was to have two people pushing on the front to get it out of the snow and get the back wheels back on the pavement, then wait a few seconds for the computer to realize the back wheels could grip again, which allowed it to pull out of the snow. All in all, a poor design. Also, the Outback, while a higher-end vehicle than the Forrester, doesn’t have as much headroom, legroom, or shoulder room. And, from my experience, the Forrester accelerates better, too. It may not be quite as nice inside, but it’s the better car.

Coming back to what Jay was talking about with the American vehicles, I agree that most of the American brands don’t have fantastic styling across all their product lines. The Corvette has good styling, as does the Mustang, and Viper. I like the way Ford trucks look, and will never buy a Dodge product (truck or otherwise) because they look kludgy. The grills look like they belong on a dump truck, not a sedan, and the trucks they make look bad, and I don’t like the Dodge/Chrysler/Jeep dashboard layout. Contrast that with what, to me, seems a very natural layout in the Ford dashboards, better visibility in similar vehicles, and I’m sold on Ford. I liked driving the pre-2005 Mustangs, as they had a fair amount of pep in those V6s, even if it was metered to you through an automatic tranny.

I was disappointed with the Windstar, though, Ford’s follow-on to the successful Aerostar line. It rode funny to me, since it’s based on a car chassis and not a truck chassis as the Aerostar was, so you don’t sit up as much in it. I like the way the Ranger looks and drives, but the S-10 (which GM has since renamed and resized) was horrendously under-powered. Ford’s higher-line trucks, the 150, 250, and 350 all looks like trucks to me. They have gobs of power, great visibility, comfortable seats, have great road handling, and enough room in them to put stuff along with passengers. I’ve ridden in several GM trucks, and driven a couple, and they feel unwieldy to me. The GM 2500 I drove several months ago felt incredibly sluggish in turning, getting up to speed, and in backing. GM also likes to put touchy brakes on their vehicles, and gas pedals that are already almost all the way to the floor. When I drove my uncle’s Blazer a couple years ago I flet like I was searching to the gas pedal to leave the parking lot. So, by the time I found it, my foot was moving quickly, and I hit the pedal hard. GM apparently wants to start with your foot on the floor and just feather the gas to get the vehicle to move. The brakes systems I’ve seen in their cars and trucks is the same way. Most vehicles have brakes that you can start to apply, and they have a nice, smooth curve of braking power. Not GM. They have on and off, and very little in between.

Ford is not without blame in all of this either. The older style Explorers were great SUVs, I don’t like the new ones at all. Taking an older explorer off-road seems natural, while the new ones are really just glorified, 4-wheel-drive minivans. The whole ‘bubble’ era in car design (which wasn’t just a Ford thing, rember those ‘cab-forward’ jellybean Chryslers and Dodges?) was just nasty. And it bugs me a great deal that most new cars have funky radio shapes which make changing the stereo out for an after-market model painful at best – impossible in some.

Admittedly, I haven’t driven any brand-spanking-new cars on a regular basis since I left Hertz, but the design on many doesn’t seem to have gotten better. Their are, obviously, people out there who keep buying cars that I think look like crap, and that are laid out in a very unergonomic fashion from my point of view. However, I have to point out that I’ve known many people who have driven their American-make cars well over 200k miles, or at least gotten up in that range. The last van my parents owned, a 94 Aerostar, got to about 230k before it croaked, or at least needed ‘major surgery’. The 94 Tracer wagon I owned for 3+ years made it all the way to 186k before it died (in Pennsylvania, driving home on spring break in 2004). And my roommate only recently got rid of his 91 Bonneville, with over 300k miles on it.

I think most people don’t drive their cars a long time because they get bored, that “keeping up with the Joneses” mentality that pervades our culture. Every vehicle I or my parents (and several of my friends) have owned, we’ve driven till they wouldn’t any more (sometimes because we put them into large objects, others because they finally broke). Vehicles being sold today, with very few exceptions, are expected to last 100-150k miles before needing tune-ups. I expect that anything I buy made since 1995 will last to around 200k, maybe further, if I can push it. The car I have now, a 95 Mazda MX-3, has 148,500 miles on it, an increase of 21k miles in the eleven months I’ve owned it. I drive a lot, but it’s been running pretty well so far. I’d like something different, but for now, this is what I’ve got, and it’s what I’ll drive.

Lasting a long time is more up to the owners, generally, then the manufacturers at this point. Outside of crashes, most vehicles have no reason to be discarded before they hit at least 150k miles – many till past 200k. So long as regular maintenance is performed, you don’t hit anything, and there weren’t blatant problems in manufacture, the car you buy, be it for looks, name, comfort, etc, should be one that you can plan on driving for 10-15 years from when it was first sold.