Worship and the Divinity of Christ

Donnie DeBord, Ph.D.

Deity of ChristDivine Life and Doctrine

No one worships by accident. Every act of worship answers the question of Who is God and who is not. Worship, then, is never neutral. Proper worship, according to Scripture, belongs to God alone because worship is an expression of one’s conviction of Who God is. Within this biblical framework, worship functions not merely as religious expression but as a theological judgment concerning God’s identity.

This article argues that the earliest worship practices of the first Christians reveal that they believed Jesus to be the true God.1 Because Scripture strictly excluded cultic devotion to any creature, the worship of Jesus by the earliest Christians cannot be adequately explained as mere honor, representation, or delegated authority. The first Christians worshiped Jesus, not because they gradually elevated Him to divine status, but because they believed that the one God of Israel had made Himself known in Him.

Exclusivity of Worship in Scripture

Moses wrote, “You shall worship the LORD your God, and him only shall you serve” (Deuteronomy 6:13). This devotion was and is appropriate because “the LORD our God, the LORD is one” (Deuteronomy 6:4). God’s people are called to love the LORD with an undivided heart and to give Him their exclusive allegiance in worship and obedience (Deuteronomy 6:5). Isaiah records, “I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other” (Isaiah 42:8). Biblical monotheism, therefore, leaves no room for shared worship. It draws a clear line between the Creator and all created things and reserves worship for God alone.

This exclusive worship continued in the New Testament. When Cornelius fell down to worship Peter in Acts 10:25, Peter lifted Him up and rejected any praise. The same pattern repeated itself in Lystra when the people wanted to worship Paul and Barnabas. They rejected this worship, saying, “We are humans like you” (Acts 14:14). In Revelation 22:9, the angel rebuked John for attempting to worship him, saying, “Worship God.”

Interestingly, Paul says, “for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist” (1 Corinthians 8:6). Then he affirms his faith that Jesus is equal to God the Father as he shares in the singular divine essence saying there is “one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist” (1 Corinthians 8:6). Paul does not relax Biblical monotheism. Instead, he affirms monotheism Christologically. He uses the language of divine identity without multiplying gods. So, did the early Christians affirm the deity of Christ in their worship practices?

The Worship of Jesus in Scripture

Within the uncompromising monotheistic world of Israel’s Scriptures, the worship of Jesus remains one of the most revealing features of the Gospel accounts. Scripture forms Israel to know that worship belongs to the LORD alone. Angels refuse it. Kings are denied it. Even the most faithful servants of God deflect it. Against that background, the worship offered to Jesus during His earthly ministry is not accidental.

When Jesus stills the storm on the Sea of Galilee, the disciples do not merely admire His power. They respond with worship, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God” (Matthew 14:33). In Israel’s Scriptures, mastery over the chaotic sea belongs to the LORD alone (Psalm 89:9; 107:28-30). The disciples’ posture matches their confession. Faced with divine authority embodied in a human life, worship becomes the only truthful response.

After the resurrection, the women grasp Jesus’ feet and worship Him (Matthew 28:9). The disciples worship Him in Galilee, even as they wrestle with awe and hesitation (Matthew 28:17). Luke tells us that they worship Him as He blesses them and ascends, and they return to Jerusalem with great joy (Luke 24:52). Stephen prays to Jesus saying “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit” (Acts 7:59). The doxology of Revelation 1:5 is directed to Christ as we read, “To him who loves us and freed us from our sins by his blood…to him be glory and dominion forever and ever.” Revelation 5 represents the elders falling to worship the Lamb as they sing the “new song” to Him (Revelation 5:9-10). The climax comes in Revelation 5:13 as they sing, “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever.” The saints cry out in worship, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne and to the Lamb” (Revelation 7:10).

Paul applies the language of prayer directly to Jesus when he describes the church as those “who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 1:2). The Lord’s Supper is practiced as a memorial to Him (1 Corinthians 11:23-26). The final prayer of Scripture is addressed to Him as John says, “Come, Lord Jesus” (Revelation 22:20). Hurtado’s summary captures the theological significance of these realities as he says the early Christians “redefined their devotion to the God of their fathers so as to include the veneration of Jesus. And apparently, they regarded this redefinition not only as legitimate but, indeed, as something demanded of them.”2 The deity of Christ is the theological conviction demonstrated in Christian worship from the beginning.

The Implications of Early Christian Worship for the Deity of Christ

Taken together, the evidence shows that Jesus is worshiped, not because His followers gradually inflated His status, but because His life made worship unavoidable. His words carried the authority of God. His works bore the marks of Israel’s Scriptures. His presence confronted those around Him with a question that could not be postponed. The people who knew Him best and followed Him closest did not merely admire Him. They bowed before Him.

Within the strict monotheism of Scripture, worship is a moral act and a theological confession. To give worship where it does not belong is idolatry. To withhold worship where it is due is unbelief. Worshiping Jesus is the only response that fits who He is as the true God. This conviction did not fade as the church moved into the wider Greco-Roman world. The first Christians remained resolutely monotheistic even as they consistently worshiped Christ. They refused the imperial cult. They would not burn incense to Caesar. They suffered loss, exile, and death rather than divide the worship that belongs to God alone.3 Their devotion to Jesus was not sentimental or politically convenient. It was deliberate, costly, and theologically informed.4 For this reason, the worship of Christ preserved in the New Testament cannot be dismissed as a late theological invention. The deity of Christ is embedded in the church’s earliest practices.

Endnotes

1 Some modern scholars have argued that belief in Jesus as divine was a later theological development rather than an original Christian conviction. Bart D. Ehrman argues that Jesus was initially regarded as a human or exalted agent of God and that worship of Jesus as God resulted from theological evolution within early Christian communities. This view argues that worship of Jesus reflects a later evolution of Christian belief rather than the convictions of the first generation of believers.

2 Larry Hurtado (2015), One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism, third edition, The Cornerstones Series, 12.

3 Ignatius of Antioch repeatedly frames Christian identity around exclusive allegiance to Jesus Christ even unto death: “Permit me to be an imitator of the suffering of my God” (Letter to the Romans, 6.3), and again, “There is one physician, both fleshly and spiritual, begotten and unbegotten, God in man, true life in death, Jesus Christ our Lord” (Letter to the Ephesians, 7.2); Polycarp of Smyrna’s martyrdom narrates his refusal to swear by Caesar or sacrifice to the gods, confessing instead, “For eighty-six years I have served him, and he has done me no wrong. How can I blaspheme my King who saved me?” (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 9.3); the church gathered at Polycarp’s death explicitly distinguishes worship due to Christ alone, stating, “Him indeed we adore as the Son of God, but the martyrs we love as disciples and imitators of the Lord” (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 17.3); the Epistle of Barnabas contrasts idolatry with true devotion, warning against rendering divine honor to any created thing and locating salvation exclusively in the Lord Who suffered (4.6-8; 5.1-3).

4 See Pliny the Younger, Letters, 10.96–97, where Christians are distinguished precisely by their refusal to worship the emperor or the gods and by their exclusive devotion to Christ; see also Tacitus, Annals 15.44, on Christian execution under Nero for allegiance to Christus; Larry W. Hurtado (2003), Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), pp. 53-82,567-607, especially his discussion of early “binitarian” worship patterns within Jewish monotheism; Richard Bauckham (2008), Jesus and the God of Israel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), pp. 1-59.

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

Singing and the Immune System: When Science Meets the Soul

 Singing and the Immune System: When Science Meets the Soul

by Brad Harrub, Ph.D.

Last week I wrote about people with dementia, Parkinson’s disease, or Alzheimer’s disease who can still remember songs—even well after the disease has progressed. This “music memory” seems to be one of the last things the brain retains. I have spent considerable time researching how the brain processes a cappella singing. What quickly became clear is that when the human voice stands alone—without instrumental accompaniment—the brain becomes more fully engaged. Singing without instruments produces cleaner, more direct neural coding, allowing words and melody to be processed together with remarkable clarity. Simply put, the human voice occupies a category all its own when it comes to how the brain hears, interprets, and responds to sound. And the deeper I have gone into the research, the more fascinating the benefits have become.

For instance, consider what we have learned recently about singing and the immune system. In a world increasingly focused on wellness, singing has emerged an unexpected ally in immune health. Active singing appears to trigger measurable biological changes that strengthen the body’s first line of defense. And the evidence is more than poetic or speculation—it is scientific.

Singing Raises The First Line of Immune Defense:

I’m going to try to keep this “simple” but understand the immune system (and the names we’ve come up with) are often complex. Secretory immunoglobulin A (SigA) is not just another immune protein. It is the primary antibody found in mucosal surfaces, coating the lining of the mouth, throat, lungs, and digestive tract. Its role is preventative—binding to viruses and bacteria and stopping them before they penetrate deeper into the body (Brandtzaeg, Immunology Reviews; see also MDPI, 2022).

Researchers consistently note that higher SigA levels are associated with greater resistance to respiratory and gastrointestinal infections, making it one of the immune system’s most important frontline defenders.

One of the most striking findings in psychoneuroimmunology research is the effect of singing on SigA production. Multiple studies have shown that when participants actively sang for approximately one hour, salivary SigA levels rose dramatically—in some cases by as much as 240% (Kreutz et al., Journal of Behavioral Medicine; corroborated by community health summaries such as Rise Up Singing).

This is not a trivial change. A 240% increase in SigA means the body rapidly enhances its protective coating along the very surfaces where most infections begin—the mouth, throat, and airways.

Active Singing vs. Passive Listening: A Critical Distinction:

Music is often associated with comfort and relaxation—and rightly so. Listening to music has been shown to reduce stress and improve mood. However, research makes a clear distinction between listening to music and actively singing.

In controlled studies comparing the two, individuals who sang experienced significant increases in SigA and positive emotional states, while those who merely listened showed little to no increase in SigA, though cortisol levels sometimes decreased (Kreutz et al., 2004; PubMed).

In other words, it is not simply exposure to music that strengthens immune defenses—it is the act of producing sound. Singing engages respiration, posture, vocal musculature, and cognitive focus in ways that passive listening does not.

Why Does Singing Trigger Immune Changes?:

Researchers believe several mechanisms work together:

• Stress Reduction: Singing lowers cortisol, a hormone known to suppress immune function when chronically elevated (Healthline; Kreutz et al.).

• Enhanced Breathing: The deep, rhythmic breathing required for singing stimulates the parasympathetic “rest-and-digest” nervous system, promoting immune regulation (Sing Up Foundation).

• Social and Emotional Uplift: Group singing increases feelings of connection and joy, both of which are strongly linked to improved immune competence (Kripalu Center; psychoneuroimmunology research).

Together, these factors form what one researcher described as a physiological symphony—multiple systems harmonizing to support immune health.

More Than Physical: Spiritual Implications

If singing strengthens biological defenses, lowers stress, and elevates emotional well-being, it is no surprise that singing has been central to worship and communal life throughout human history. Scripture repeatedly connects singing with joy, resilience, and devotion. Psalm 100:1–2 commands, “Make a joyful noise unto the Lord… serve the Lord with gladness.”

Long before SigA could be measured in a laboratory, God’s people were instructed to lift their voices. Now, modern science is confirming what believers have practiced for centuries: singing benefits both body and soul.

FACEBOOK POST

 Elijah wasn’t a priest. He wasn’t royalty. He didn’t come from one of the powerful families. He shows up in Scripture out of nowhere with no birth story, no resume, no lineage flex. His name literally means “My God is Yahweh,” which in that culture is already a bold statement because names weren’t just names. They were theology. They were identity. They were a claim.

And Hebrew culture was very different from how we think today. This was not a private faith situation. Religion was communal. Public. National. The god you worshiped was tied to your land, your crops, your rain, your survival. If your god didn’t provide, you didn’t eat. So when drought hit, it wasn’t just inconvenient. It was terrifying.

Enter Baal.

Baal was a storm and fertility god. Rain god. Crop god. Weather influencer of the ancient Near East. When rain stopped falling, people assumed Baal was either angry or needed more enthusiasm. So Israel, instead of trusting Yahweh, hedged their bets. They kept God…but also added Baal. Just in case. Spiritually speaking, they were playing both sides.

Elijah walks into this moment like someone who is deeply unimpressed.

He tells the people they are limping between opinions. Not walking. Not standing. Limping. Like someone trying to walk with one foot in two different boots. It looks ridiculous and it gets you nowhere.

Then he proposes the showdown.

Two altars. Two sacrifices. No fire allowed. In a culture where fire from heaven was associated with divine approval, this was not a gimmick. This was a legal case. A cosmic courtroom. Whoever answers is God.

The prophets of Baal go first. And they do exactly what everyone expected them to do. They chant. They dance. They cry out. They perform. Hours go by. Still nothing. So they escalate. More volume. More movement. Eventually they start cutting themselves because in that worldview, blood equaled seriousness. Suffering meant sincerity.

Nothing happens.

And Elijah, who has apparently reached the “I am no longer trying to be likable” phase of life, starts mocking them.

Maybe your god is busy.

Maybe he stepped out.

Maybe he’s sleeping.

Maybe you should yell louder.

Which sounds funny now, but in that moment would have been shocking. You didn’t mock gods lightly. That was dangerous talk.

Still nothing.

Then Elijah steps up and quietly rebuilds an altar that had been broken down. That detail matters. Israel had dismantled worship to Yahweh. Elijah is physically restoring what had been abandoned. He uses twelve stones. One for each tribe. Even though the nation was fractured, Elijah is saying God still sees the whole.

Then he does something no one expecting a miracle would do. He drenches the sacrifice with water. Again. And again. Water was precious in a drought. This is borderline offensive. The altar is soaked. The trench is full. No one can accuse this of being staged.

Then Elijah prays.

Not loudly.

Not dramatically.

No emotional manipulation.

Just a simple request that God would make Himself known so the people would turn back.

Fire falls from heaven.

Not a spark. Not a flicker. Fire that consumes the sacrifice, the wood, the stones, the water. Everything. In Hebrew thinking, this wasn’t just power. This was authority. Approval. Judgment. Clarity.

And just when you think Elijah rides off into the sunset feeling victorious and confident forever…

He crashes.

He runs. He hides. He tells God he’s exhausted. He feels alone. He wants out.

Same man. Same chapter. Same God.

And God doesn’t scold him. Doesn’t lecture him about faith. God feeds him. Let's him sleep. Feeds him again. And then speaks to him not in fire, not in wind, not in an earthquake, but in a whisper.

Because sometimes God proves who He is to the crowd.

And sometimes He reminds His servant that he is still held.

If you’ve ever wondered why God doesn’t always show up loudly.

If you’ve ever felt worn down after doing the right thing.

If you’ve ever stood alone and wondered if it even mattered.

This story is saying yes. It mattered then. It matters now.

God does not need noise to be real.

And He does not abandon people who are faithful and tired at the same time.

Sometimes the fire falls.

Sometimes the whisper comes.

Both are how God speaks.

WHY CREATION GROANS

 WHY CREATION GROANS

Watch a lion sprint across the plains and your pulse tightens. A gazelle collapses in the dust while the predator takes its prize. People see that violence and accuse God of cruelty. Atheists wave these moments like ammunition, claiming suffering disproves the Creator. But Genesis declares a different story. Its strength. beauty and honestly reflected majesty. It is evidence of a world that has been wounded by sin.

The same accusation rises when cancer enters the picture. Cells multiply without restraint. Bodies weaken. Families pray through tears. Atheists shout that this proves a loving God cannot exist. But cancer is not part of God’s original design. It is a biological consequence of a spiritual catastrophe. Adam’s rebellion did not just break fellowship. It broke physics. It broke genetics. It broke creation itself. Romans 8 says creation groans. Cancer is one of those groans. It reveals that something is wrong and it is not God who failed. It is man who sinned and rebelled against Him.

Here is the truth atheists cannot outrun. Pain and death does not disprove God. It proves that humanity knows deep inside that death is unnatural. Their outrage is not evidence of a universe without purpose. It is evidence that their soul remembers Eden. Every tear cried over cancer, every cry raised at the sight of suffering, every moral objection against death is a silent confession that the world was meant to be different. And God promises it will be different again. Christ did not come to explain pain. He came to conquer it. He absorbed the curse and rose victorious, proving He alone holds authority over life and death.

And the story does not end with survival. It ends with restoration. Scripture promises a day when creation itself will be healed. A day when disease will have no breath left. A day when mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, and all the redeemed stand together in a reunion that crushes sorrow forever. No wheelchairs. No hospitals. No funerals. No fear. Only life overflowing in the presence of our GOD in Heaven.

Revelation 21:4 says, He will wipe away every tear from their eyes and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain, for the former things are passed away.

That is not fantasy. That is the destiny of those who belong to Christ, and creation itself aches for that day. Do you belong to Christ. This is a decision only you can answer. You need to search your BIBLE and see just where your location will be after DEATH. You only have two options. LOCATION is very important for your soul.

Atheism vs GOD Video 1 min

https://www.facebook.com/reel/25152947497709393 

Click on the link above and follow the path provided.

Dragon Myths or Dinosaur Descriptions? Video 14 min

https://apologeticspress.org/video/dragon-myths-or-dinosaur-descriptions/ 

Click on the link above and follow the paths provided.

 

How Many Women, Men, and Angels Were at the Tomb of Jesus?

Eric Lyons

Alleged Discrepancies

                 

In his debate with Michael Horner on “Did Jesus Really Rise From the Dead?” atheist Dan Barker asked:

Who were the women who came to the tomb? Matthew said it was Mary Magdalen and the other Mary. Mark said it was Mary Magdalen, Mary the mother of James, and Salome. Luke said it was Mary Magdalen, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women. John said Mary Magdalen….

Who was at the tomb when they arrived? Mark said there was one “young man.”… Luke said there was [sic] two men. Matthew said there was one angel, and John, the last writer, said, there’s two angels. See what’s happening here? See how the myth is growing and getting more exaggerated?1

Indeed, two of the most frequently cited reasons for questioning (and perhaps rejecting, as in the case of Barker) the four resurrection accounts have to do with the identity and number of women who went to the empty tomb of Jesus, as well as who (and how many) they actually found there.

The Women

Many fail to recognize in their critique of the Bible that additional information is not necessarily contradictory information. Was it essential for the apostle John to mention every woman who came to the tomb of Jesus on the morning of His resurrection, or was he at liberty to mention as few as he wanted (John 20:1)? If Mary Magdalene was at the tomb on that Sunday morning, and John recorded that she was there, without ever denying the presence of others (some of whom were mentioned by Matthew, Mark, and Luke), could his record of the events be truthful? Of course. Differences exist among the Gospel writers’ accounts, but no one has proven that they are discrepant. Just as a person might say, “I went to the ball game with Bill, Bob, and Bubba,” he might also truthfully say, “I went to the game with Bill and Betty.” These statements are not necessarily contradictory. One can easily (and honestly) supplement the other. A person may only mention Bill and Betty in one setting when talking to one group (e.g., at worship where the church knows the married couple), while at another setting when talking to a different group (e.g., at the office where only the men are known), he may truthfully just mention the men. We must keep in mind that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote at different times, to different people, for different reasons.

Consider the scenario where four different newspaper reporters are covering the 2021 NBA finals (between the Phoenix Suns and the Milwaukee Bucks). All four writers are from different cities, including Phoenix, Milwaukee, Charleston, South Carolina, and Athens, Greece. Here are the four different headlines from the Bucks’ third win in the series:

• From Phoenix: “Timely Team Effort Lifts Bucks Over Suns”
• From Milwaukee: “Jrue Holiday’s Big Night on Offense and Defense Leads to W”
• From Charleston: “Hometown Hero Kris Middleton Shoots Lights Out in Win”
• From Athens: “Greece’s Giannis Leads the Way for Another Bucks Win”

All four reporters focused on different people in their headlines (and stories) for different reasons for their different audiences. Yet, all four reports were truthful. No reasonable person would accuse the writers of contradicting one another. Similarly, no rational, fair-minded individual should assume the Bible writers were errant in their accounts of the events on the morning of Jesus’ resurrection.

Furthermore, if the Bible writers always told every detail of every account the same way (mentioning the same people, places, things, and events exactly alike), the criticism would then be, “They all copied each other’s accounts. They conspired with one another!” When an experienced detective interviews various suspects regarding a crime, and all four suspects have the exact same alibi (down to the smallest details), the detective will be highly suspicious of such “perfect” repetitiveness—wondering if collusion has taken place to cover up a crime.

One of the many marvels of the Gospel accounts is how similar they are so as not to be contradictory, yet how different they are so as not to be guilty of collusion. This perfect balance of various truthful differences is what should be expected by independent truth-tellers, especially those who were inspired by God.

The Number and Nature of Those Already at the Tomb

The Gospel writers also differ in their accounts of who was at the tomb of Jesus when the women arrived. Regarding the number of individuals present, if there were “two” (as Luke and John specify), then there was at least one (on whom Matthew and Mark focus). Matthew and Mark do not say “there was only one,” but they do mention one individual. As with the number of women who came to the tomb, the number of individuals who were already at the tomb is not contradictory but supplementary. If I tell someone, “I have an old car with a lot of miles on it,” and I tell someone else, “I own two old cars you should check out,” I have not contradicted myself. Both statements are factual. Simply because I did not mention both cars in the first conversation is not a denial of owning more than one older car. It’s quite telling how easily skeptics can understand the legitimacy of supplementation not being equivalent to a contradiction in their own everyday life scenarios yet not give the Bible writers the same fair treatment.

Still, what about the nature of the individuals at the tomb of Jesus? Were they men or angels? The answer is simply, “They were both.” Lest someone scoff at such an answer, pause for a moment to consider how versatile certain things are (as well as the description of those items). In one setting, a person may refer to his handheld device as a “phone,” and in another setting, his “flashlight.” He may take out this device at a meeting to check his “calendar,” while later on that night he uses it as an “alarm clock.” (Imagine telling someone in 1950 that his “phone” would one day also be his flashlight, calendar, alarm clock, camera, directory, etc. He would have thought you had gone mad. Yet, to those in the 21st century, it all makes perfect sense.) Many things are not either/or; they are both/and.

Similar to how Jesus was both God and man (John 1:15,14; Philippians 2:5-11), the individuals at the tomb of Jesus on the day of His resurrection were both angels and men. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all correct in their accounts. The angels were in human form. Mark and Luke referred to their humanity (in their appearance), while Matthew and John referred to their angelic nature. Consistent with what Scripture teaches elsewhere (e.g., Genesis 18:1-33; 19:1,5,15), in the past, both God and angels have come to Earth in the form of human beings.

The four Gospel accounts independently testify that various women arrived at the tomb of Jesus on the morning of His resurrection and were greeted by angels who were in the form of men. Such differently worded statements are without contradiction. In truth, they stand as perfectly harmonious accounts with different, supplemental material from four different independent writers.

Endnotes

1. Dan Barker (1996), “Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?” Debate with Michael Horner at the University of Northern Iowa, April 2, http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/barker_horner.html.

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

Biblical Creation

 MALE AND FEMALE COULD NOT EVOLVE

Every living creature that multiplies faces one unbreakable law of life.

If reproduction fails, the species disappears.

There is no second chance. No slow recovery. No future generation. One broken link and the entire line ends forever.

Now think carefully about what that means for male and female.

Reproduction only works if two completely different bodies exist at the same time, each with thousands of matching parts that must fit together perfectly. One produces sperm. The other produces eggs. One delivers genetic material. The other receives it. Hormones must be synchronized. Organs must be shaped correctly. Nerves must signal at the right moment. Immune systems must tolerate a growing child. The egg must be released when sperm is present. The womb must be ready when the egg arrives. The embryo must know how to attach. The placenta must know how to form.

None of this works halfway.

A half male is sterile. A half female is sterile. Two incomplete systems do nothing. There is no advantage in almost being able to reproduce. A species either multiplies fully, or it goes extinct.

Evolution claims these two systems appeared gradually through random changes. But if the male came first, there was no one to reproduce with. If the female came first, the same thing happened. If they appeared separately, their organs, hormones, timing, and chemistry would never line up. And if creatures reproduced without males and females first, then these systems would never be preserved because they would not be needed.

This is not a small flaw. It is a fatal one.

Two interdependent systems cannot arise independently when survival depends on both existing together from the beginning.

Jesus said it plainly.

“Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female?” Matthew 19:4

Not after ages of trial and error. At the beginning.

Biology is simply confirming what Scripture already declared.