Category Archives: Evolution

December 1, 2013 · 21:07

Time for Pride to Grow

“. . . when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” (Job 38:7)

A common question that arises from time to time is, “When did God make the angels?” A corollary question to that is “Was there enough time for pride to grow in Satan and for the war in Heaven to occur within the first few days?”

In the Job passage quoted above, God is telling Job that the angels were there at the time when He formed the earth. As to whether there was sufficient time for Satan’s pride to grow, we must ask, “How much time does it take for pride to grow?” In our own experience, does it take a long time to develop pride, or does it just seem to flare up unexpectedly? I would say the latter. Pride is one of the most basic sins. Human beings are naturally selfish and self-centered. Recall that very shortly after Creation, Satan was able to tempt Eve with “the pride of life” (1 John 2:16): “ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:5). It does not take a great amount of time for pride to grow.

The angels probably were created on the first day of the creation week. We cannot be dogmatic about this. The Bible does not specify when the angels were created, but the above passage in Job indicates that they were at least around to see the creation taking place. The angels, therefore, were created before man. Perhaps the reason for not focusing more attention on angels is that the Bible focuses mainly on the relationship between God and man. Angels play a part, but they are not central to God’s redemptive plan. But what does God say about man? “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth” (Genesis 1:26, emphasis added). Did God say that about the angels? Did God give dominion over His creation to the angels? Can you see anything there that would give rise to pride and jealousy?

It would not have taken a long time for Satan’s pride to grow. Having been created first and then given lower status than man, Satan said, “I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High” (Isaiah 14:13-14, emphasis added). Satan hates man because God has bestowed upon man greater status than the angels. “What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet” (Psalm 8:4-6, emphasis added). The English phrase “a little lower than the angels” is not an accurate translation. “Angels” is the Hebrew ‘ĕlôhîym referring to God rather than the normal word for angels mal’âkîm. This is a messianic passage describing the condescension of Christ in taking human form, but this also has a secondary meaning as applied to man. Having been created in the image of his Maker, man holds a higher status than the angels, and this infuriates Satan.

This being the case, Satan most likely rebelled on Day Six of creation or very shortly thereafter. Seeing that man was God’s prized creation, Satan turned his ire toward destroying man. Knowing that man was created in the image of God, he employed that fact to cause man’s demise: “ye shall be as gods” (Genesis 3:5). If one analyses the source of any sin, it all goes back to pride – man wants to be his own god. This has been true from the beginning when Satan witnessed the creation of man, and since the fall of man in the Garden (Genesis 3). It really takes no time for pride to develop. It is nothing that requires any nurturing. On the contrary, it is something must actively be suppressed, and this cannot be done through human strength. It requires the supernatural power that only comes from God through the Holy Spirit. Jesus promised, “ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you” (Acts 1:8), and it is in that power alone that pride can be conquered.

1 Comment

Filed under Apologetics, Christianity, Creation, Evolution, Gospel, Origins, Theology

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

November 17, 2013 · 13:00

The Present is the Key to the Past

Grand-Canyon-Sunrise

While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.  (Genesis 8:22)

In the origins debate, the young-earth creationist is confronted with the uniformitarian account for the supposed long ages they see in the earth’s crust. “Uniformitarianism is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe. It has included the gradualistic concept that ‘the present is the key to the past’ and is functioning at the same rates.”[1] I appreciate that definition because it clearly states that uniformitarianism is an “assumption,” which differs considerably from a “fact.” Young-earth creationists can agree with uniformitarianism to a small degree based on the biblical perspective provided in the Bible verse above.

I hope I can explain this in a way that makes sense. What uniformitarian thinking does is to look at the geologic processes that are currently taking place (as defined above) and assume that these processes have always taken place at the same rate over millions of years. The uniformitarian, then attempts to mathematically extrapolate back in time to determine the age of the rocks or the formation of strata on the earth’s crust.

In the case of rocks, different radiometric dating methods measure the current rate at which certain minerals within the rocks decay. “Radiometric dating (often called radioactive dating) is a technique used to date materials such as rocks, usually based on a comparison between the observed abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope and its decay products, using known decay rates.”[2] For instance, uranium decays into lead at a certain known rate (“normally”). They can then take a rock containing uranium and measure how much uranium remains compared to the lead, and using currently known decay rates, they can calculate the age of the rock by the ratio of uranium-lead content. Keep in mind that they are “assuming” a constant decay rate.

In the case of sedimentation (or stratification), we can observe river deltas forming. We can observe, for example, that the river is depositing silt onto the delta at the rate of one inch per year. We can then take a core sample of the delta, and we discover that the silt is a mile (5280 ft.) deep. Since we know that silt deposits on the delta at the rate of one inch per year and has done so consistently in the past, we can multiply 5280 ft. by 12 in. and we calculate that the delta is 63,360 years old.

That kind of thinking is what gives us the long ages that evolutionists like to see. However, the problem with that lies in their assumption that things have always been consistent. In the case of the delta, what if the river flooded several times and deposited a foot of silt at every flood apart from the normal 1 inch per year? That would make the delta appear to be older than it really is. Or, what if the coast experiences several storms that erode the delta away? Then the delta would appear to be younger than what it really is.

In the case of radioactive decay, how can the geologist know for sure how much uranium the rock contained to begin with? Or how can they know with certainty that no uranium or lead has been infused into the rock somewhere along the way, or that some event caused greater decay than normal? These things cannot be known so the uniformitarian is left with only assumptions (and they really believe their assumptions).

Young-earth creationists believe the biblical creation account to begin with. Therefore they understand that the earth is probably around 6000 years old but certainly not more than 10,000 years old. They believe the biblical account of the Global Flood and any “uniformity” that is apparent is due to God’s promise that all things would remain consistent (Genesis 8:22 above). From this “ground zero” starting place, they can then make scientific predictions that verify the veracity of the Bible. For instance, the fact that Carbon 14, a highly volatile element having a half-life of only 5,730 +/- 40 years, is still present in petroleum, coal and diamonds. Uniformitarians would not even think to test for C-14 in these minerals, because they assume these minerals to be multimillions of years old, so naturally C-14 should not be present. Young-earth creation scientists believe that the earth is young, so C-14 should be present. So, they look for it, and BEHOLD! There it is!

If you would like to study more on this, the following are some articles from the Institute for Creation Research that may interest you:

http://www.icr.org/article/young-earth/

http://www.icr.org/article/some-recent-developments-having-do-with-time/

http://www.icr.org/article/new-rate-data-support-young-world/

http://www.icr.org/article/carbon-dating-undercuts-evolutions-long-ages/

 The present is not the key to the past – the Bible is!

Endnotes:

2 Comments

Filed under Apologetics, Creation, Evolution

Tagged as , , , ,

August 18, 2013 · 15:29

Genetic Defects Prove Evolution?

mutation

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. (Genesis 1:31)

A high school sophomore was required to read Survival of the Sickest: The Surprising Connections Between Disease and Longevity by Dr. Sharon Moalem as a summer reading assignment. According to this student, the book takes different diseases or illness and traces them back to their origin and provides scientific research to back up why a particular disease was once beneficial to our ancestors. Such strong “evidence” challenged the young man’s creationist worldview and raised several questions in his mind:

  • If God did create diseases did he have any good intentions or did he want them to destroy us?
  • Is God still creating diseases today, or are the ones He created just now being discovered?
  • Is this book right when it says that as humans we adapt overtime based on certain genes that help us survive?

The student offered one example of the disease hemochromatosis, which is a genetic disorder “that causes high amounts of iron to be present in the body, and overtime the human body ‘rusts’ away until the person affected dies” according to the student. The Mayo Clinic says that “hemochromatosis causes your body to absorb too much iron from the food you eat. The excess iron is stored in your organs, especially your liver, heart and pancreas. The excess iron can poison these organs, leading to life-threatening conditions such as cancer, heart arrhythmias and cirrhosis. Many people inherit the faulty genes that cause hemochromatosis — it is the most common genetic disease in Caucasians” (emphasis added).[1]

As reported by the student, Moalem “suggests that this disease helped people to survive during the bubonic plague. The bubonic plague was easily contracted and once it was in your system would rapidly progress feeding off of the iron available in the blood stream and within days kill you. Those who were lucky enough to have hemochromatosis, however, had almost all of their iron inaccessible to the plague since it was all in ‘locked’ form. This prevented the disease from spreading and enabled people to survive.” This was offered by Moalem as one example of the evolutionary theory of natural selection and how adaptations helped many people to survive.

I have not read Moalem’s book, so the information I have is secondhand. However, the error in thinking seems pretty clear to me. The example cited about hemochromatosis is an example of a genetic defect. The people with this genetic defect die because their bodies cannot make use of the iron in their system. The fact that it protected them from the bubonic plague did not save them from the eventual death caused by their genetic disorder. They still eventually died prematurely because of their inherited disease!

The same is true for those with sickle cell anemia. It is a genetic defect that brings about the early death of those having the defect. However, the defect makes them immune to malaria, and although they are safe from malaria, they eventually die an early death because of the disease. Personally, I do not see the benefit in either of these cases!

Genetic studies are showing that we are not improving health-wise. Our knowledge of how to combat some of these diseases continues to improve as new diseases continue to crop up.[2] Studies have shown that we transmit 60 to 200 mutations every generation,[3] and those mutations are either neutral or harmful; none are beneficial.

The question of human adaptation, as far as survival in different environments, I think has more to do with man’s intellect than it does genetics. However, as Brian Thomas, science writer for the Institute for Creation Research, points out, “It’s plausible that the Creator ‘front-loaded’ Adam and Eve’s genomes with full complements of a wide variety of both essential and non-essential genes, as well as genetic and epigenetic factors to facilitate rearrangement of those genes. Thus, as humans have spread out and thrived in various environments across the globe since their dispersal at Babel, their traits have also spread out.”[4]

As for God creating diseases, in a certain sense, He did. God is sovereign and all of creation is subject to His control. However, in another sense, God did not create disease. Genesis 1:31 tells us that God’s assessment of His creation was that it was “very good.” Such an assessment coming from a perfect God can only mean “perfect” – “flawless.” Death, decay and disease came as a result of man’s sin. “Because thou … hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake” (Genesis 3:17, emphasis added). It is because of man’s sin that disease entered into the world, not because God created it – at least not initially. In the beginning man was created not to die; in fact, nothing that God created was intended to die. The Bible calls death “the enemy” (1 Corinthians 15:26). So, our genetic degradation is due to sin. However, God will not allow us to degenerate to extinction. When Christ returns, He will restore everything back to its original perfection (Revelation 21:1). That should give us great hope!

Here are some other articles on the human genome that you may find interesting:

 http://www.icr.org/article/origins-breakthroughs-2010-human-genetics/

http://www.icr.org/article/new-genomes-project-data-indicate-young/

[2] Brian Thomas, “More Mutations Mean More Diseases, Less Evolution” http://www.icr.org/article/mutations-mean-more-diseases-less-evolution/

[3] Brian Thomas, “The Human Mutation Clock Is Ticking” http://www.icr.org/article/human-mutation-clock-ticking/

[4] Brian Thomas, “Recent Human Variation Is Not Evolution” http://www.icr.org/article/recent-human-variation-not-evolution/

2 Comments

Filed under Apologetics, Creation, End Times, Evolution, Religion, Theology

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

August 12, 2013 · 10:40

Episode 33 – Dinosaurs and Humans

Episode 33 – Dinosaurs and Humans.

Are dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible? Watch and see!

7 Comments

Filed under Apologetics, Christianity, Creation, Evolution, Religion

July 28, 2013 · 20:55

An Atheist’s Challenge – Round Two

DNA Double Helix

… evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

(2 Timothy 3:13)

The atheist about whom I wrote last week actually responded. It surprised me. Something I’ve noticed about atheists is their inability to focus on any one thing and examine it thoroughly. Instead they resort the “fire hose tactic” by trying to overwhelm their opposition with more “evidence” than one can respond to – all of it unsubstantiated, of course. I find that one advantage of writing over speaking is that I can select the topic to which I will respond, and rather than going into great detail to defend my position, I just refer the atheist to articles written by real scientists that present a contrary view. The atheist prides himself in being “open-minded,” so this allows him to practice what he preaches.

I do not want to burden my readers with every detail of the conversation, but the following are some of the points the atheist attempted to make, along with my commentary.

  • Some species that have evolved throughout the recorded history of mankind. Examples – The fish in the Hudson River evolving to survive the toxic waste, the South-East Fence Lizard which has learnt [sic] a defensive ‘dance’ to fight off ant predators, the Lerista Skink that’s evolved to shrink its legs to travel through the Australian sands more efficiently, slithering instead of walking with legs.

Here the atheist is equivocating. I had previously warned the atheist not to do this, but there is only so much one can expect from a reprobate mind (Romans 1:28).  Evolutionists often confuse “adaptation” (microevolution) with macroevolution – one kind of animal changing into another. In his examples, the fish is still the same species of fish. It did not change into a whale or grow legs to walk out of the polluted waters. The lizard is still the same species of lizard. The lerista skink genus, according to the Wikipedia, “is especially notable for the variation in the amount of limb reduction. The variation ranges from short-bodied forms with large legs bearing five toes, to elongate forms completely lacking legs” (emphasis added). “Variation” does not equal “evolution.”

  • Humans share (approx) 96% of their genes with Chimpanzees, 90% with Cats, 80% with Cows, 75% with Mice (90% of Mice’s genome can be lined up with certain regions on the human genome, also with 99% of Mice’s genes turning out to have analogues in humans), 60% of Fruit Flies’ DNA is shared, 60% of genes with Chickens, and so on.

If anything, the similarity in DNA among animals and even plants speaks to a common designer not to evolution. The information coded and stored in DNA are the instructions necessary to make a human being human or a dog either a Great Dane or a Chihuahua.  Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins, biologist with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) has written much on this subject. His research shows that the similarities between human and chimp DNA are not as close as first proclaimed, and the gap grows greater the more he investigates. (See: Chromosome Comparison Shows More Chimp-Human Differences.)

The atheist then pointed to Darwin’s finches at the Galapagos Islands. That really is no different than what has already been covered above. Typically, what I have noticed about atheists is that they parrot things that they have heard without bothering to think critically about what they have heard. They simply regurgitate what they have been fed. His next point is a good example:

  • Big Bang Theory… 13.7 billion years ago (somewhere around that mark), not 5,000 years (almost hilarious to believe the world is that young with the overwhelming amount of proof), something quite large happened. Not an explosion like most Religious parties believe happened, nothing like if a balloon were to pop and all its contents were to spill out in all different directions. It happened more like a small balloon finitely expanding to the size of the Universe as it is now. What caused this, no-one knows, the mathematics behind it are [sic] crazy and extreme for humans to even grasp.

If “religious parties” portray the Big Bang as an “explosion,” it is because that is how it was initially portrayed by Sir Fred Hoyle (and others), the man who coined the phrase in 1949. Current theoretical physicists promulgate this idea by what is presented on the mass media. While they speak about “inflation,” they present images that imply an explosion. Contrary to the atheist’s portrayal of “religious parties,” creation scientists would lean more toward the side of “inflation” (without the billions of years) as this view lines up better with biblical instruction (Job 26:7; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 40:22; 44:24; Zechariah 12:1). The atheist ignores that there are competing views among secular scientists on how the Big Bang developed. The jury is still out on which is the correct interpretation. So, like all fools, the atheist builds on a foundation of sand (Matthew 7:26).

  • Our sun alone is 4.57 billion years old, after it collapsed (along with many other stars) from being a part of a giant molecular cloud (Hydrogen + Helium). For god to have created the sun 5,000 years ago, it would still be in the process of its collapse and Earth would still being in its process of creation, much more flat and disc-shaped.

In the first place, gas does not collapse; it expands, which is an argument against current star formation theories. This is a carefully guarded secret. As for God not being able to create in a short amount of time, obviously the atheist is not familiar with the omniscient, omnipotent God of creation.

At this point, the atheist begins his assault on God. He begins his attack with words straight from the devil’s mouth: “You’re god is the only true god?” Then he lists several pagan gods. Interestingly he finds the parallels between the pantheon of Asherah, who is impregnated by a ray from the sun god, gives virgin birth to a son, who is killed and rises again. There are several variations of this theme in ancient pagan religions which predate Christianity. Asherah is called the “Queen of Heaven,” a title which is currently carried by the Virgin Mary of the Roman Catholic Church. Let us face it; Satan is not stupid. He is the foremost counterfeiter. Jesus called him the father of lies (John 8:44). Sadly, the atheist has willfully accepted the lie as evidenced by his charge that “Christianity and its bible [sic] is simply a mish-mash, hand-me-down of all the most memorable elements and factors of thousands of different ‘pagan’ religions that came a long time before it.”

As previously stated, often the atheist’s strategy is to overwhelm his opponent with a barrage of stupid questions. (Yes, there are stupid questions – those that are not thought out before presenting them.) Here are some examples:

  • About Adam and Eve … They ate from the ‘Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil’ which disobeyed god…right? Just one problem: How could have Adam and Eve been expected to comprehend the implications of their actions if, prior to their indiscretion, they had no concept of right and wrong, punishment, evil, pain, suffering and death? Even if god had been successful in adequately explaining all these beforehand, this means that he would have had to give them knowledge of good and evil anyways, which turns the entire story into one big ridiculous farce. A loving, just and secure god would realise [sic] that simply not believing in him is not a crime worthy of hellfire.

The atheist assumes that Adam and Eve were supposedly created with lower intelligence rendering them incapable of understanding God’s only rule (Genesis 2:16-17). This rule seems straightforward and simple enough that any child can comprehend it. This was answered in last week’s post, so I will not comment on it further other than to say the atheist was either not paying attention or his reprobate mind kept him from seeing it.

  • God doesn’t make mistakes, as you put it, he is perfect in every aspect, therefore his creations were perfect too… so why then did he flood the entire Earth killing thousands, if not millions of innocent people, along with some of the ‘sinners’… they couldn’t have been ‘sinful’ because god made them, and he’s perfect and so were his creations. There would be no way they could have turned against him, because they were perfect (research the word ‘perfect’ think you’re using the wrong one).

The atheist missed the part about the fall of man (Genesis 3:6), also covered in last week’s post. That is what makes these kinds of questions stupid, and they are designed to distract the opponent from the main point – that God is Creator of all and His creation is accountable to Him – like it or not.

The atheist went on to make more absurd arguments, and I do not want to bore my readers; but what follows is the saddest thing of all. This was his response to the Gospel message that I presented to him:

  • Jesus’ “sacrifise” [sic] … For Jesus to have made a blood sacrifice for our sins is impossible. A blood sacrifice cannot ‘pay’ for a person’s sin, it is an archaic, deeply flawed view of morality that says that, as long as there is blood spilled to appease god (and with Jesus’ blood being innocent at that), then the crime is forgiven. How can someone else pay for your sins? In what sense is morality and justice served if someone, let’s say, offers to take the place of a condemned criminal in the electric chair? Does this change the fact that the condemned criminal has not been held responsible for his actions? And how is the innocent death anything more than a sad, pointless waste that doesn’t add anything to the overall moral equation?

It intrigued me that he should see the futility of blood sacrifices. God shares the same attitude: “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins” (Hebrews 10:4). But the innocent, sinless blood of the God-Man is ultimately superior: “By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Hebrews 10:10).

The atheist had much more to say, but I found it wearisome, tedious and mind-numbing. The Bible tells us to “be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15). But the Bible does not put the burden of conversion on the shoulders of the witness; that work is for the Holy Spirit. But we should not withdraw when challenged by an unbeliever just because we assume it will be time wasted. Often, your words, no matter how well put together or how brilliantly argued, will fall upon deaf ears. Occasionally though, you may find that one that is ignorant, knows it, and truly wants to learn the truth. That one is worth the effort!

2 Comments

Filed under Apologetics, Atheism, Christianity, Creation, Evangelism, Evolution, Gospel, Religion, Salvation, Theology

Tagged as , , , , , , ,