Dear Sir: Would you please direct me information about God vs. Evolution? My burning questions are as follows: 1. The stars are millions of years old-why were they here so much longer than man? 2. Where and when did God come from? 3. Who created God? 4. Why did it take millions of years from the time the stars were created before man was created? I would like answers to these questions. Can you direct me to online sites or books that address these questions? Thank you for your assistance.

It is merely an assumption that stars are millions of years old. An assumption is a theory, hypothesis, postulation, supposition, conjecture or guess. The unsubstantiated assumption that the stars are millions of years old has been foisted upon society by anti-God evolutionists who imagine that if enough time were interjected into their dilemma of origins, then the impossible may appear plausible. Likewise, the theory that mankind appeared on earth millions of years after the existence of the stars, and perhaps millions of years prior to the present, is the muse of people who vehemently deny God his rightful place as Creator, and consequently deny him to whom man is amenable now.

Appeals to logic or common sense speak to the origin of God pseudo-issue. Evolutionists scoff at and deny the concept of the eternality of God. Hence, they pose the jeering questions: "Where and when did God come from? Who created God?" Removing God from consideration, evolutionists then theorize (1) the eternality of matter and (2) that somehow and randomly lifeless matter sprung to life. Not one scientist has ever been able, even under the strictest and most favorable laboratory conditions, to motivate lifeless matter to spring to life. Why then would anyone cling to the untenable and scientifically indefensible postulation that life originated from lifeless matter through random circumstances? Talk about blind leaps of faith (for which there is no evidence)!

If one is willing out of necessity to assume the eternality of lifeless matter, why is it out of the question to embrace the concept of the eternality of God? "What is good for the goose is good for the gander!" Further, is it more reasonable to believe that lifeless matter sprung to life through random circumstances that cannot be duplicated under laboratory circumstances, or is it more reasonable to conclude that a supernatural God caused matter and life to come into being? As theories go, irrespective of any other consideration, a living God acting is more plausible than lifeless matter acting upon itself!

Still further, the apparent intelligent design of the universe is more likely attributable to an Intelligent Designer than to dumb, lifeless matter. Sometimes in order for an organism to live, it depends on another organism. Sometimes the organs in animals demand parallel, simultaneous design and immediate implementation for the animal to survive; that is, no number of years and the slowest development or even mutation could explain complex interdependent organs necessary for an animal's survival. Let's see; what is more plausible, the eternality of God (an Intelligent Designer) or the eternality of dumb, lifeless matter to which one can trace origins and revere as Father?

The Yucca Flower and the Pronumba Moth sustain an interdependent relationship to each other without which especially the Yucca Flower could not survive. Given the unusual design of the Yucca Flower and that only the Pronumba Moth pollinates it as the moth reproduces, neither the Yucca Flower nor the Pronumba Moth could exist without each other simultaneously. The Bombardier Beetle has two glands each of which makes and stores a different chemical. When mixed, heated to boiling and shot out a 360 degrees aiming tube the hot and burning mixture wards off would-be attackers. Evolution cannot explain the parallel development of independent bodily functions that are completely useless without their collaboration. The Venus Fly Trap lives in soils lacking sufficient nutrients for its survival and relies on a bait, capture and digestion system to 'eat flies.' If evolution were the procedure through which the Venus Fly Trap developed, how long would it have had to go hungry (thousands to millions of years) before the necessary and complicated machinery were in place to fend for itself in an inhospitable environment? The human heart, as complicated as it is, would do nothing and life would be impossible, without the existence of special cells that generate an electrical impulse and cause the heart muscle to contract. The many systems within a human body are interdependent on each other and must work together for life to occur. This compatibility and simultaneous development and implementation are owing to intelligent design of an Intelligent Designer (God) rather than happen chance over eons. Not even mutation can adequately explain a shorter (within one generation) fundamental redesign of a living system, because (1) mutation always produces an unfavorable, nonproductive result and (2) mutation, such as an extended neck on a giraffe stretching to reach leaves on tall trees, does not affect genes.

Appeals to scientific facts (not theories) counter the "millions of years old" reference to the stars (and the rest of the universe). There is abundant scientific evidence for a young earth (and universe in which is the earth). Population kinetics (statistics) is the computation of the world's population based on the number of generations, life spans and number of children. Estimates of world population by interjecting one million years (of the two to three million years evolutionists guess man has been on earth) postulates a population larger than what the known universe could contain! However, computation of the world's population based on about 10,000 years of human habitation corresponds closely to the present population of the world.

Depletion of the earth's magnetic field occurs at a known rate. Projecting the earth's magnetic field back in time just 10,000 years, given the rate at which the magnetic field is being depleted, attains the maximum strength of the earth's magnetic field beyond which it could not exist (the earth would crush itself with the magnetic field).

The shrinkage of the sun speaks to a young earth. Projecting backward in time with the knowledge that sun is shrinking at five feet per hour, 100,000 years ago the sun would have been twice the size it is now. Twenty million years ago, the sun and the earth would have touched each other. The hundreds of millions of years ago or more that evolutionists claim life developed would have occurred inside the sun! A young earth of 6,000 years or so given the facts relative to the shrinkage of the sun would prove no problem for life on earth.

The unidirectional (one way) conversion of hydrogen into helium despite the abundance of hydrogen in the universe (outer space) speaks to a young universe. Atmospheric helium, the release of helium from the earth's crust, when compared to the known rate of its release indicates that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old.

The concentrations of elements or compounds in the oceans, the amount of space dust on the moon or over 75 scientific methods attest to a young earth that is not more than 10,000 years old (Bert Thompson, Ph.D.).

Contrary to popular misrepresentation of Christians, belief in a Creator God is not merely the crutch of ignorant masses. There are many scientists who possess advanced degrees who disavow evolution and subscribe to creation and its Creator. Still other honest and courageous scientists that cannot yet bring themselves to mouth the word "God" discount evolution and acknowledge intelligent design. Some of the following URLs will provide both online references to resources as well direct one to printed matter. The material contained in this article is merely suggestive of the extensive and documented scientific evidence that supports Intelligent Design by an Intelligent Designer (i.e., creation rather than evolution).

Other resources can be found through the Internet with the aid of a search engine.

A question comes regarding Christians withdrawing themselves from the church, and does withdrawing oneself from the church release Christians from the biblical responsibility to modify their fellowship with such erring Christians. The question arises particularly regarding the family context of adult siblings.

The fact that a Christian has absented himself from one or more services of the church, even for years, does not remove the responsibility of the church and the members who comprise it from its and their responsibility in the Scriptures respecting church discipline -- inclusive of "fellowship" (1 Corinthians 5:4-5, 9-11, 13; 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14-15; Titus 3:10). The Scriptures say nothing about a Christian withdrawing fellowship from the church, but about the church withdrawing fellowship from an erring child of God.

1. It is true that one reason for withdrawing fellowship from an impenitent erring child of God is to preserve the purity of a local congregation (1 Corinthians 5:6-8; Romans 16:17-18).  However, that is not the only reason for which withdrawal of fellowship should be exercised when necessary. A primary reason to withdraw fellowship from an erring Christian is to recover the soul of the errant child of God, if possible (1 Corinthians 5:4-5). A third reason to exercise church discipline when biblically mandated is so other Christians do not become complicit in the erring child of Gods sins (1 Corinthians 5:2, 6; 2 John 9-11). Ordinary, unrestrained social interaction with erring children of God (including with nondependent family members) implicitly condones their sinful behavior and offers them no incentive to repent.

One's conduct with impenitent, erring Christians is not forbidden but encouraged (2 Thessalonians 3:15), as long as the erring child of God (and onlookers within and without of the church) understands the faithful Christian's disapproval of the delinquent child of God's waywardness. The fact of a family member's waywardness does not dissolve family relationships (e.g., spouses, siblings), but certainly those relationships could be a lot more were the unfaithful child of God to repent and return to the Lord. Therefore, not cut off but restrained, a faithful Christian can have a degree of social interaction with an erring child of God. Further, to the extent of a Christian's waywardness, a faithful Christian will necessarily limit his exposure and the exposure of his family to that negative influence and impact (2 Corinthians 6:14-18).

Were can I find were the Shepard broke the sheep leg when the sheep went astray from the flock and the Sheppard broke it,s leg and carry the sheep on his shoulder until it follow the flock.or give me a book name were i can read this.

I have never heard of a shepherd breaking the leg of the lost sheep once it was found. A cursory look through resources available to me likewise was void of such a thing. The Bible describes the shepherd seeking and recovering straying sheep in Ezek. 34:12 and Luke 15:4 and no broken legs are mentioned. I examined several Bible dictionaries and religious encyclopedias plus a book on manners and customs of the Bible.

God still says one man for one woman for life. I found this statement in an article in Gospel Gazette on Line. Where may I find this pasage? ~ Ralph Roe

The first dictionary definition of the verb "say" is "to express in words." God's divine ideal of one man for one woman for life is expressed in words abundantly throughout the Bible, beginning with the creation of Adam and Eve, versus the creation of Adam and Steve or the creation of Adam and Eve and Alice or the creation of Adam and Benjamin and Eve or any other combination of males and females (Genesis 2:21-22). Jesus re-instituted God's original plan for matrimony in Matthew 19:1-9. Though Jesus made a single allowance therein for divorce and remarriage of the innocent party to a divorce for adultery, should marriage occur again, still it would be between one man and one woman. God hates putting away (Malachi 2:16).