We travel around the US with a team of men and women targeting places where we know we'll find sinners. We knew we would find some church going Christians but what we found was shocking. It wasn't the heathen at these wicked evil events. It was the entire church! Please pray for us as we go out to go find those that have gone astray.
I just had a look through the article and one thing stood out:
"4. Evolution as commonly taught (“molecules to monkeys to man” macroevolution) is untrue. Life did not begin by naturalistic, evolutionary processes in some “primordial soup,” as is taught in virtually all biology textbooks."
The beginning of life, as you know, is not evolutionary at all as there were no imperfect replicators until life was already present (we're talking abiogenesis here). The idea of a 'primordial soup' is also not really conventional thinking on the matter any more. I also doubt that any textbook, anywhere, teaches that man came from 'monkeys'. As you are no doubt aware, evolutionary theory is that monkeys and man share a common ancestor.
This is pretty basic stuff and if they get this wrong, I wonder how you can trust that anything else is right?!
Also, how do you account for the fact that you and Ray believe in the same thing and yet he's YEC and you're OEC? I thought the Holy Spirit was supposed to clear this sort of stuff up for you once you're born again?
The beginning of life, as you know, is not evolutionary at all as there were no imperfect replicators until life was already present (we're talking abiogenesis here).
I have listened to several of these Evolution 101 podcasts on iTunes and to be honest, I have heard this declaration above several times and yet, it contains a problem for how life began. If life evolves strictly by nature, it must begin strictly by nature. Even Darwin realized this. The remarkable thing is that they will say this on the one hand and then bring up big bang cosmology and abiogenesis later to make a point. I do understand that the theory of evolution has had to narrow its parameters to after life was started since no plausible explanation has been found to support how the first microbe was started. There are some great podcasts on RTB iTunes. One is about the theory of life beginning through ionized hydrogen resting on diamonds. Fuz Rana commends the scientists for their work but also points out that it doesn't explain how this happened. The main reason that they have said this though is that in the oldest rocks to date there is absolutely no evidence for carbonaceous material as should be in a primordial soup. What we do see is microbes.
I also doubt that any textbook, anywhere, teaches that man came from 'monkeys'. As you are no doubt aware, evolutionary theory is that monkeys and man share a common ancestor.
RTB has done a tremendous job of looking into the hominids and their role in the world. One thing I read yesterday that they believe is that the reason for the hominid was to acclimate the animals to humanity. Apparently, where the hominids existed there is less extinction than where they didn't exist. Wherever humanity went, life went extinct at an unbelievable rate except in the places where these animals existed. The hominids further show animal type behavior although they did fashion some tools like rocks but nothing that showed the type of ability that one created in the image of God did. There are several examples of this in homo sapien sapiens including jewelry that is clearly fashioned as decorative jewelry, musical instruments, art, and other cognitive reasoning skills. mtDNA studies also do not lead back to the hominids but to one woman in or around East Africa known as mtDNA Eve. There is also one man that the Y-Chromosome leads back to. I think there is much still to be learned about this important topic. There are many holes in our understanding.
Also, how do you account for the fact that you and Ray believe in the same thing and yet he's YEC and you're OEC? I thought the Holy Spirit was supposed to clear this sort of stuff up for you once you're born again?
I wonder sometimes if he is going to cut me off. So far, he hasn't. I think partially, he realizes that I am getting answers to these important questions. Listen, nobody wants to be believe a lie. Nobody wants to look like a fool trying to say something is true when it obviously isn't true. I have witnessed to more people in the last few years and they are intelligent and they want answers. I think deep down inside they know God is real but they are not convinced of it because of these scientific problems. I think most people realize that if there is a God, He must be the God of the Bible. With all that in mind, Ray Comfort leaves me in the dust with his sharing with people. I saw one of his debates with a group of atheists a long time ago and even with my rudimentary understanding at the time, I felt bad for him because I had just begun to get some answers and I realize he didn't have the answers. True confession- I asked God once if I could give input into his ministry. He must have sent me a link to this blog and I must have put a link on the top of Safari but I surely don't remember doing that. Anyway, I saw this link marked RC and wondered what it was for, not remembering that moment. I clicked on it and found the blog. I thought, "Wow, can we share here?" I never got a response. So, I just dove in. :-)
That's my story. For whatever reason, Matt, he's been letting me share for months on the truth that science agrees is truth and how this matches the biblical account. Sometimes we have to humbly admit we're wrong. I am hoping that's what's happening here. Perhaps these two men could connect.
Thank you for the considered response, I appreciate it.
In an effort to avoid parroting my own naturalistic preconceptions I am going to have a listen to some of the RTB podcasts you have recommended - I think it's only fair seeing as how you've been trawling through the evolutionist side for some time now!
I'll get back to you when I've investigated further.
One quick thing though. You said:
"If life evolves strictly by nature, it must begin strictly by nature. Even Darwin realized this."
I see no reason to assume that the beginning of life had to be natural, just because life evolves naturally. I would say that that is an unfounded assumption; the origin of life is such a mysterious and, dare I say it, miraculous event that you would be well within reason to hypothesize an unnatural originator.
The point is that evolution is the study of the diversification of life. End of story. I could be a master chess-player and not know who invented the game or when; it wouldn't change the fact that I can study how it is played.
Finally, I recently finished reading 'Origin of Species" (funnily enough, it was the constant evolution-denial of Mr. Comfort himself that encouraged me to find out what Darwin actually wrote!). I don't know where you got the idea that Darwin realized that life began 'strictly by nature'; he makes constant references to The Creator and says quite bluntly that there is no evidence available to think otherwise.
My point about the 'microbe-monkey-man' thing, is that no textbooks say this. It is a lie. Whatever their ideas are about the role of hominids, it doesn't change the fact that evolution does not posit a monkey to man transition - they are lying when they say that it does.
We agree on one thing at least: "There are many holes in our understanding."
I'll give an 'Amen' to that!
Thanks Vera, I'll let you know how I get on with the podcasts.
I realize that the words "The Theory of Evolution" have now been narrowed down to life once it was started. It wasn't always that way, but for the sake of argumentation, it is a valid point and so I concede that this is the case. Nevertheless, the beginning is important to the Christian perspective in terms of understanding the nature and invisible attributes of God in creation. Creation didn't start at the animals. It started "in the beginning."
One DVD that I highly recommend is Hugh Ross's called Journey to Creation. It is excellent!
Finally, I recently finished reading 'Origin of Species" (funnily enough, it was the constant evolution-denial of Mr. Comfort himself that encouraged me to find out what Darwin actually wrote!). I don't know where you got the idea that Darwin realized that life began 'strictly by nature'; he makes constant references to The Creator and says quite bluntly that there is no evidence available to think otherwise.
Darwin had some struggles in life especially after his daughter died. I don't blame him. That would be terribly difficult to endure. There is nothing more unnatural than having a child die.
On wikipedia under abiogenesis there is a quote from Darwin, In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on February 1, 1871,[10] Charles Darwin made the suggestion that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes". He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."[11] In other words, the presence of life itself makes the search for the origin of life dependent on the sterile conditions of the laboratory.
So he did think about this.
Then from RTB, research has pointed toward a different scenario.
Origin-of-life researchers have recently uncovered unequivocal evidence that life first appeared early in Earth history, shortly after the formation of the first rocks.20-23 The oldest rocks yet discovered on Earth date at around 3.9 billion years old. Prior to this time, the earth existed largely in a molten state unsuitable for life. Researchers have identified carbonaceous deposits—deposits made up of carbon compounds such as kerogen tars, graphite and apatite—from the earth’s oldest rocks, dated at 3.86 billion years old. The chemical signature of these carbonaceous deposits indicates that they were produced as the by-product of biological activity. Fully consistent with the discovery of life’s by-products from 3.86 billion years ago is the discovery of fossilized bacteria in rocks about 3.5 billion years old.24, 25
I wrote this on Ray's site today to Whateverman.
Whateverman said:
And in doing so, they willfully ignore the Christians who subscribe to the idea that evolution more accurately explains the present state of life on the planet.
I said: Even in the olden days when we as Christians were hearing a lot of YEC material, Christians still had to account for life progressing from the oceans to the land to mankind as Genesis 1 describes. That is in essence an "evolution." Of course, Christians will agree to this. I remember hearing K. Hovind say once that two dogs created all the dogs on the planet. This would also be "evolution" and that one evolution is clearly by natural means. So you can't say that it is one or the other. The place where we will part company is with the beginning of life here by natural means and the introduction of new species and speciation. Instead of seeing that nature could produce this without our Holy God, we see His Hand is necessary within the process and recognize that mutation, genetic shift and the adding on of organized DNA that perfectly suits a creature for its habitat and symbiosis with the animals around it is simply not a plausible explanation. The odds of this happening at random are close to zero.
Did you know that there is a parasite that lives in the gut of the termite? If the termite's parasite is removed, it eats but cannot digest and so it shrivels up and dies. So which came first? The parasite or the termite? Once upon a time, there was a termite that couldn't digest its food but one termite had a parasite, so it survived and its friends died? Knowing how important this parasite was to its next generation, it knew enough to regurgitate its food for its young so that they too would get a loading dose of termite parasites so that this would continue on because termite babies will not last a day without that parasite. Did the queen pass on this information? How did a stupid bug know that this was important? How did the organization to the colony begin? Are termites beneficial to this world? You bet they are! They are the cleanup crew after the hurricane. Yum, yum.
There is a lot of truth in Darwin's writings but there is also conjecture and misunderstanding.
Posts
4 comments:
Hi Vera, me again!
I just had a look through the article and one thing stood out:
"4. Evolution as commonly taught (“molecules to monkeys to man” macroevolution) is untrue. Life did not begin by naturalistic, evolutionary processes in
some “primordial soup,” as is taught in virtually all biology textbooks."
The beginning of life, as you know, is not evolutionary at all as there were no imperfect replicators until life was already present (we're talking abiogenesis here). The idea of a 'primordial soup' is also not really conventional thinking on the matter any more.
I also doubt that any textbook, anywhere, teaches that man came from 'monkeys'. As you are no doubt aware, evolutionary theory is that monkeys and man share a common ancestor.
This is pretty basic stuff and if they get this wrong, I wonder how you can trust that anything else is right?!
Also, how do you account for the fact that you and Ray believe in the same thing and yet he's YEC and you're OEC? I thought the Holy Spirit was supposed to clear this sort of stuff up for you once you're born again?
Interesting read all the same,
Cheers,
Matt
Hi Matt
The beginning of life, as you know, is not evolutionary at all as there were no imperfect replicators until life was already present (we're talking abiogenesis here).
I have listened to several of these Evolution 101 podcasts on iTunes and to be honest, I have heard this declaration above several times and yet, it contains a problem for how life began. If life evolves strictly by nature, it must begin strictly by nature. Even Darwin realized this. The remarkable thing is that they will say this on the one hand and then bring up big bang cosmology and abiogenesis later to make a point. I do understand that the theory of evolution has had to narrow its parameters to after life was started since no plausible explanation has been found to support how the first microbe was started. There are some great podcasts on RTB iTunes. One is about the theory of life beginning through ionized hydrogen resting on diamonds. Fuz Rana commends the scientists for their work but also points out that it doesn't explain how this happened. The main reason that they have said this though is that in the oldest rocks to date there is absolutely no evidence for carbonaceous material as should be in a primordial soup. What we do see is microbes.
I also doubt that any textbook, anywhere, teaches that man came from 'monkeys'. As you are no doubt aware, evolutionary theory is that monkeys and man share a common ancestor.
RTB has done a tremendous job of looking into the hominids and their role in the world. One thing I read yesterday that they believe is that the reason for the hominid was to acclimate the animals to humanity. Apparently, where the hominids existed there is less extinction than where they didn't exist. Wherever humanity went, life went extinct at an unbelievable rate except in the places where these animals existed. The hominids further show animal type behavior although they did fashion some tools like rocks but nothing that showed the type of ability that one created in the image of God did. There are several examples of this in homo sapien sapiens including jewelry that is clearly fashioned as decorative jewelry, musical instruments, art, and other cognitive reasoning skills. mtDNA studies also do not lead back to the hominids but to one woman in or around East Africa known as mtDNA Eve. There is also one man that the Y-Chromosome leads back to. I think there is much still to be learned about this important topic. There are many holes in our understanding.
Also, how do you account for the fact that you and Ray believe in the same thing and yet he's YEC and you're OEC? I thought the Holy Spirit was supposed to clear this sort of stuff up for you once you're born again?
I wonder sometimes if he is going to cut me off. So far, he hasn't. I think partially, he realizes that I am getting answers to these important questions. Listen, nobody wants to be believe a lie. Nobody wants to look like a fool trying to say something is true when it obviously isn't true. I have witnessed to more people in the last few years and they are intelligent and they want answers. I think deep down inside they know God is real but they are not convinced of it because of these scientific problems. I think most people realize that if there is a God, He must be the God of the Bible. With all that in mind, Ray Comfort leaves me in the dust with his sharing with people. I saw one of his debates with a group of atheists a long time ago and even with my rudimentary understanding at the time, I felt bad for him because I had just begun to get some answers and I realize he didn't have the answers. True confession- I asked God once if I could give input into his ministry. He must have sent me a link to this blog and I must have put a link on the top of Safari but I surely don't remember doing that. Anyway, I saw this link marked RC and wondered what it was for, not remembering that moment. I clicked on it and found the blog. I thought, "Wow, can we share here?" I never got a response. So, I just dove in. :-)
That's my story. For whatever reason, Matt, he's been letting me share for months on the truth that science agrees is truth and how this matches the biblical account. Sometimes we have to humbly admit we're wrong. I am hoping that's what's happening here. Perhaps these two men could connect.
Vera
Vera,
Thank you for the considered response, I appreciate it.
In an effort to avoid parroting my own naturalistic preconceptions I am going to have a listen to some of the RTB podcasts you have recommended - I think it's only fair seeing as how you've been trawling through the evolutionist side for some time now!
I'll get back to you when I've investigated further.
One quick thing though. You said:
"If life evolves strictly by nature, it must begin strictly by nature. Even Darwin realized this."
I see no reason to assume that the beginning of life had to be natural, just because life evolves naturally. I would say that that is an unfounded assumption; the origin of life is such a mysterious and, dare I say it, miraculous event that you would be well within reason to hypothesize an unnatural originator.
The point is that evolution is the study of the diversification of life. End of story. I could be a master chess-player and not know who invented the game or when; it wouldn't change the fact that I can study how it is played.
Finally, I recently finished reading 'Origin of Species" (funnily enough, it was the constant evolution-denial of Mr. Comfort himself that encouraged me to find out what Darwin actually wrote!). I don't know where you got the idea that Darwin realized that life began 'strictly by nature'; he makes constant references to The Creator and says quite bluntly that there is no evidence available to think otherwise.
My point about the 'microbe-monkey-man' thing, is that no textbooks say this. It is a lie. Whatever their ideas are about the role of hominids, it doesn't change the fact that evolution does not posit a monkey to man transition - they are lying when they say that it does.
We agree on one thing at least: "There are many holes in our understanding."
I'll give an 'Amen' to that!
Thanks Vera, I'll let you know how I get on with the podcasts.
Regards,
Matt
Matt,
I realize that the words "The Theory of Evolution" have now been narrowed down to life once it was started. It wasn't always that way, but for the sake of argumentation, it is a valid point and so I concede that this is the case. Nevertheless, the beginning is important to the Christian perspective in terms of understanding the nature and invisible attributes of God in creation. Creation didn't start at the animals. It started "in the beginning."
One DVD that I highly recommend is Hugh Ross's called Journey to Creation. It is excellent!
Finally, I recently finished reading 'Origin of Species" (funnily enough, it was the constant evolution-denial of Mr. Comfort himself that encouraged me to find out what Darwin actually wrote!). I don't know where you got the idea that Darwin realized that life began 'strictly by nature'; he makes constant references to The Creator and says quite bluntly that there is no evidence available to think otherwise.
Darwin had some struggles in life especially after his daughter died. I don't blame him. That would be terribly difficult to endure. There is nothing more unnatural than having a child die.
On wikipedia under abiogenesis there is a quote from Darwin, In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on February 1, 1871,[10] Charles Darwin made the suggestion that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes". He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."[11] In other words, the presence of life itself makes the search for the origin of life dependent on the sterile conditions of the laboratory.
So he did think about this.
Then from RTB, research has pointed toward a different scenario.
Origin-of-life researchers have recently uncovered unequivocal evidence that life first appeared early in Earth history, shortly after the formation of the first rocks.20-23 The oldest rocks yet discovered on Earth date at around 3.9 billion years old. Prior to this time, the earth existed largely in a molten state unsuitable for life. Researchers have identified carbonaceous deposits—deposits made up of carbon compounds such as kerogen tars, graphite and apatite—from the earth’s oldest rocks, dated at 3.86 billion years old. The chemical signature of these carbonaceous deposits indicates that they were produced as the by-product of biological activity. Fully consistent with the discovery of life’s by-products from 3.86 billion years ago is the discovery of fossilized bacteria in rocks about 3.5 billion years old.24, 25
I wrote this on Ray's site today to Whateverman.
Whateverman said:
And in doing so, they willfully ignore the Christians who subscribe to the idea that evolution more accurately explains the present state of life on the planet.
I said:
Even in the olden days when we as Christians were hearing a lot of YEC material, Christians still had to account for life progressing from the oceans to the land to mankind as Genesis 1 describes. That is in essence an "evolution." Of course, Christians will agree to this. I remember hearing K. Hovind say once that two dogs created all the dogs on the planet. This would also be "evolution" and that one evolution is clearly by natural means. So you can't say that it is one or the other. The place where we will part company is with the beginning of life here by natural means and the introduction of new species and speciation. Instead of seeing that nature could produce this without our Holy God, we see His Hand is necessary within the process and recognize that mutation, genetic shift and the adding on of organized DNA that perfectly suits a creature for its habitat and symbiosis with the animals around it is simply not a plausible explanation. The odds of this happening at random are close to zero.
Did you know that there is a parasite that lives in the gut of the termite? If the termite's parasite is removed, it eats but cannot digest and so it shrivels up and dies. So which came first? The parasite or the termite? Once upon a time, there was a termite that couldn't digest its food but one termite had a parasite, so it survived and its friends died? Knowing how important this parasite was to its next generation, it knew enough to regurgitate its food for its young so that they too would get a loading dose of termite parasites so that this would continue on because termite babies will not last a day without that parasite. Did the queen pass on this information? How did a stupid bug know that this was important? How did the organization to the colony begin? Are termites beneficial to this world? You bet they are! They are the cleanup crew after the hurricane. Yum, yum.
There is a lot of truth in Darwin's writings but there is also conjecture and misunderstanding.
Vera
Post a Comment