CHINESE INDIANS?
Acts 21:2
"And finding a ship sailing over to Phoenicia, we went aboard and set sail."
Today we look back on the European migration to North America as one of the results of a more enlightened age. When we do this, we forget that the American Indians migrated to North and South America from Asia and built their own culture long before the Europeans. If what a Texas Christian University linguist says is true, the Olmec Indians of the American Southwest and Central America may not have been Indians at all.
Linguist Mike Xu has spent several years studying 3,000 year old Olmec jade, stone and pottery relics. The Olmec civilization appeared abruptly, as if from out of nowhere, about 1200 B.C. As he examined the hundreds of symbols on the relics, it struck him that the Olmec symbols look very much like the Chinese writing of the same period. Olmec art is also very much like the Chinese art of the same period. He added that Olmec religious practices were very similar to Chinese religious practices of the time. For example, both cultures put jade beads in the mouths of the dead to ward off evil. Xu concludes, "The similarities are just too striking to be a coincidence."
An entire civilization begun and perhaps supported by ships sailing from China implies a sophisticated transpacific shipping system. Perhaps we need to revise our evolutionary system for evaluating ancient history and give credit to people who were just as curious and resourceful as we are today.
Lord, help me use the abilities You have given me to glorify You. Amen.
Discover, 2/00, p. 20, "Chinatown 1000 B.C." Photo: Olmec jade from the Mayan Classical period. Courtesy of John Hill. (CC-BY-SA 3.0)
Acts 21:2
"And finding a ship sailing over to Phoenicia, we went aboard and set sail."
Today we look back on the European migration to North America as one of the results of a more enlightened age. When we do this, we forget that the American Indians migrated to North and South America from Asia and built their own culture long before the Europeans. If what a Texas Christian University linguist says is true, the Olmec Indians of the American Southwest and Central America may not have been Indians at all.
Linguist Mike Xu has spent several years studying 3,000 year old Olmec jade, stone and pottery relics. The Olmec civilization appeared abruptly, as if from out of nowhere, about 1200 B.C. As he examined the hundreds of symbols on the relics, it struck him that the Olmec symbols look very much like the Chinese writing of the same period. Olmec art is also very much like the Chinese art of the same period. He added that Olmec religious practices were very similar to Chinese religious practices of the time. For example, both cultures put jade beads in the mouths of the dead to ward off evil. Xu concludes, "The similarities are just too striking to be a coincidence."
An entire civilization begun and perhaps supported by ships sailing from China implies a sophisticated transpacific shipping system. Perhaps we need to revise our evolutionary system for evaluating ancient history and give credit to people who were just as curious and resourceful as we are today.
Lord, help me use the abilities You have given me to glorify You. Amen.
Discover, 2/00, p. 20, "Chinatown 1000 B.C." Photo: Olmec jade from the Mayan Classical period. Courtesy of John Hill. (CC-BY-SA 3.0)
WAS JESUS SENDING US TODAY A SPECIAL MESSAGE?
Mark 8:24
"And he looked up and said, 'I see men like trees, walking.'"
When Jesus healed people, they were usually immediately and completely healed. In several instances, He wasn't even in the presence of the person He healed. Then we come to a curious instance of a healing in the Gospel of Mark. Mark 8:22-25 tells us that Jesus was asked to heal a blind man in Bethsaida. After spitting on His hands and touching the man's eyes, He asked the blind man if he could see anything. The man announced that people looked like trees. After Jesus touched his eyes again, the man could see clearly.
Why couldn't Jesus, Who created everything in six days, Who could raise the dead, heal this man instantly and completely? Of course, He could have done that. But He seemingly chose not to. Perhaps He wanted to send a special message to people today. First-century medicine knew of no way to restore sight to those born blind, but modern medicine can sometimes restore the sight of those born blind. On receiving their sight, such people usually suffer from a condition known as agnosia. They can see, but their brains have not yet developed the connections necessary to interpret what they are seeing. Such people often say, when seeing for the first time, that people appear upside down and look like trees. Over time, the connections form between perception and reality.
So the healing of the man born blind was really two miracles. Perhaps Jesus wanted those of us who live in a time when such knowledge is available to recognize that these stories of miracles are not just simplistic stories. They are medically accurate.
Dear Father, I glorify You for preserving Your Word, which tells me of salvation in Jesus Christ. Amen.
Creation, 9/11/99, pp. 54 55, "Walking Trees." Painting: "Christ Healing the Blind Man" by Andrey Mironov (2009). (CC-BY-SA 4.0)
Mark 8:24
"And he looked up and said, 'I see men like trees, walking.'"
When Jesus healed people, they were usually immediately and completely healed. In several instances, He wasn't even in the presence of the person He healed. Then we come to a curious instance of a healing in the Gospel of Mark. Mark 8:22-25 tells us that Jesus was asked to heal a blind man in Bethsaida. After spitting on His hands and touching the man's eyes, He asked the blind man if he could see anything. The man announced that people looked like trees. After Jesus touched his eyes again, the man could see clearly.
Why couldn't Jesus, Who created everything in six days, Who could raise the dead, heal this man instantly and completely? Of course, He could have done that. But He seemingly chose not to. Perhaps He wanted to send a special message to people today. First-century medicine knew of no way to restore sight to those born blind, but modern medicine can sometimes restore the sight of those born blind. On receiving their sight, such people usually suffer from a condition known as agnosia. They can see, but their brains have not yet developed the connections necessary to interpret what they are seeing. Such people often say, when seeing for the first time, that people appear upside down and look like trees. Over time, the connections form between perception and reality.
So the healing of the man born blind was really two miracles. Perhaps Jesus wanted those of us who live in a time when such knowledge is available to recognize that these stories of miracles are not just simplistic stories. They are medically accurate.
Dear Father, I glorify You for preserving Your Word, which tells me of salvation in Jesus Christ. Amen.
Creation, 9/11/99, pp. 54 55, "Walking Trees." Painting: "Christ Healing the Blind Man" by Andrey Mironov (2009). (CC-BY-SA 4.0)
COULD CREATION AND EVOLUTION BE TELLING THE SAME STORY?
Genesis 1:1
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
People who believe that God used evolution to bring about all living things claim that the Bible and evolution are telling the same story using different words. They say that everything in both stories happens in the same order. But is this really true?
In the Bible, the Earth was made before the sun, while evolution insists that the sun existed before the Earth. Genesis tells us that sea creatures, which would include whales, were made a day before land animals. Evolution says that whales evolved from preexisting land animals. For that matter, the Bible says that land plants were made before life in the ocean, while evolution claims that life – including plants – started in the ocean. Genesis tells us that fruit trees were the first living things created. Evolution claims that fruit trees evolved fairly recently in geological history. The Bible teaches that birds were created before land animals. Evolution says that birds evolved from earlier land animals.
We could go on with still more contradictions between Genesis and evolution. It should be clear that they are not telling the same story. And there is one more, and most important, contradiction between the two stories. While the Bible teaches that death is a result of our sin, evolution says that death is natural and was part of the evolutionary process. Evolution offers us no eternal hope. The Bible teaches that Jesus' death on the cross does offer us hope through salvation and eternal life.
Lord, keep me in Your Word so I may never be misled into false belief. Amen.
Back to Genesis [ICR], 6/99, p. d, "Could Evolution and Creation Be Telling the Same Story in Different Ways?" Photo: Composite image showing the diversity of birds. (CC-BY-SA 3.0)
Genesis 1:1
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
People who believe that God used evolution to bring about all living things claim that the Bible and evolution are telling the same story using different words. They say that everything in both stories happens in the same order. But is this really true?
In the Bible, the Earth was made before the sun, while evolution insists that the sun existed before the Earth. Genesis tells us that sea creatures, which would include whales, were made a day before land animals. Evolution says that whales evolved from preexisting land animals. For that matter, the Bible says that land plants were made before life in the ocean, while evolution claims that life – including plants – started in the ocean. Genesis tells us that fruit trees were the first living things created. Evolution claims that fruit trees evolved fairly recently in geological history. The Bible teaches that birds were created before land animals. Evolution says that birds evolved from earlier land animals.
We could go on with still more contradictions between Genesis and evolution. It should be clear that they are not telling the same story. And there is one more, and most important, contradiction between the two stories. While the Bible teaches that death is a result of our sin, evolution says that death is natural and was part of the evolutionary process. Evolution offers us no eternal hope. The Bible teaches that Jesus' death on the cross does offer us hope through salvation and eternal life.
Lord, keep me in Your Word so I may never be misled into false belief. Amen.
Back to Genesis [ICR], 6/99, p. d, "Could Evolution and Creation Be Telling the Same Story in Different Ways?" Photo: Composite image showing the diversity of birds. (CC-BY-SA 3.0)
EVOLUTION IS EFFECTIVELY DEAD"
2 Peter 3:5
"For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:"
If I were come out and say that "neo-Darwinism is effectively dead despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy", you can be sure that evolutionists would be all over me. If I went on to say that our knowledge of genetics is now sufficient to reject evolution's slow, gradual selection of small mutational changes, you can bet evolutionists would hurl insults at me, using words I would not be permitted to repeat on this radio station.
But if one of the world's top evolutionists were to write what I just said, he would get away with it. Especially when this eminent evolutionist's name is Stephen Jay Gould. Before his death in 2002, this Harvard professor and Humanist of the Year utterly rejected slow, gradual evolution powered by mutations.
Now think about this for a moment. Gould and his esteemed colleague Niles Eldredge rejected the same neo-Darwinism that creationists reject! Both of these respected evolutionists knew that neo-Darwinism was an emperor with no clothes, so they came up with the punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution. According to Gould and Eldredge, evolution happens by way of sudden, major changes, resulting in the appearance of "hopeful monsters."
Mutations produce only minor variations, said Gould. Experiments that start with flies end up with flies. So he asked: "How can such processes change a gnat or rhinoceros into something fundamentally different?"
They can't! Nevertheless, evolutionists will continue to believe in slow, gradual evolution, not because of any evidence but because their godless worldview demands it.
Heavenly Father, fallen men accept evolution because they do not want You to rule over them. I ask You to reveal Yourself to many so they will believe unto eternal life and bring glory to Your holy name! Amen.
G. Parker, Creation: Facts of Life, pp. 104-106. S.J. Gould, "The Return of Hopeful Monsters", Natural History, June/July 1977. S.J. Gould, "Is a New General Theory of Evolution Emerging?", Paleobiology, Winter 1980. Diagram: Punctuated equilibrium depends upon rare bursts of major evolutionary change. (PD)
2 Peter 3:5
"For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:"
If I were come out and say that "neo-Darwinism is effectively dead despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy", you can be sure that evolutionists would be all over me. If I went on to say that our knowledge of genetics is now sufficient to reject evolution's slow, gradual selection of small mutational changes, you can bet evolutionists would hurl insults at me, using words I would not be permitted to repeat on this radio station.
But if one of the world's top evolutionists were to write what I just said, he would get away with it. Especially when this eminent evolutionist's name is Stephen Jay Gould. Before his death in 2002, this Harvard professor and Humanist of the Year utterly rejected slow, gradual evolution powered by mutations.
Now think about this for a moment. Gould and his esteemed colleague Niles Eldredge rejected the same neo-Darwinism that creationists reject! Both of these respected evolutionists knew that neo-Darwinism was an emperor with no clothes, so they came up with the punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution. According to Gould and Eldredge, evolution happens by way of sudden, major changes, resulting in the appearance of "hopeful monsters."
Mutations produce only minor variations, said Gould. Experiments that start with flies end up with flies. So he asked: "How can such processes change a gnat or rhinoceros into something fundamentally different?"
They can't! Nevertheless, evolutionists will continue to believe in slow, gradual evolution, not because of any evidence but because their godless worldview demands it.
Heavenly Father, fallen men accept evolution because they do not want You to rule over them. I ask You to reveal Yourself to many so they will believe unto eternal life and bring glory to Your holy name! Amen.
G. Parker, Creation: Facts of Life, pp. 104-106. S.J. Gould, "The Return of Hopeful Monsters", Natural History, June/July 1977. S.J. Gould, "Is a New General Theory of Evolution Emerging?", Paleobiology, Winter 1980. Diagram: Punctuated equilibrium depends upon rare bursts of major evolutionary change. (PD)
NEW PROBLEMS FOR ORIGIN OF LIFE THEORIES
Psalm 36:9
"For with You is the fountain of life; in Your light we see light."
The usual theories for the origin of life have the first genetic material assembling itself by chance in a hot setting. Some have suggested that this may have happened in an undersea thermal vent or the side of a volcano. Trying to explain the origin of life without God suffers from many scientific problems. New research has now uncovered yet another problem.
Researchers at the University of California at San Diego examined how stable the chemical bases of genetic material are under various conditions. Origin of life theories must assume that wherever life began, these chemical bases had to build up to a concentration to make it likely that they would find enough of each other to make meaningful genetic material. This, they theorize, would have taken hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of years. Researchers discovered that heat breaks down the four bases that make up genetic material. This effectively rules out thermal vents as a source for the first life. In a temperature at the boiling point of water, one of the bases lasts only 19 days. None of them lasts long enough to build up enough concentration for life to start. Even at 75 degrees none of these chemical bases lasts long enough to be geologically important to evolution. Only freezing conditions allow the bases to last long enough.
All attempts to explain the origin of life without God's direct action and design are doomed to failure. Perhaps this is why evolutionists now suppose that life began in outer space!
Dear Father, I rejoice in You as the source of life here and forever. Amen.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 7/98, pp. 7933 7938. Photo: Some scientists now suggest that life began in an undersea thermal vent. (PD)
Psalm 36:9
"For with You is the fountain of life; in Your light we see light."
The usual theories for the origin of life have the first genetic material assembling itself by chance in a hot setting. Some have suggested that this may have happened in an undersea thermal vent or the side of a volcano. Trying to explain the origin of life without God suffers from many scientific problems. New research has now uncovered yet another problem.
Researchers at the University of California at San Diego examined how stable the chemical bases of genetic material are under various conditions. Origin of life theories must assume that wherever life began, these chemical bases had to build up to a concentration to make it likely that they would find enough of each other to make meaningful genetic material. This, they theorize, would have taken hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of years. Researchers discovered that heat breaks down the four bases that make up genetic material. This effectively rules out thermal vents as a source for the first life. In a temperature at the boiling point of water, one of the bases lasts only 19 days. None of them lasts long enough to build up enough concentration for life to start. Even at 75 degrees none of these chemical bases lasts long enough to be geologically important to evolution. Only freezing conditions allow the bases to last long enough.
All attempts to explain the origin of life without God's direct action and design are doomed to failure. Perhaps this is why evolutionists now suppose that life began in outer space!
Dear Father, I rejoice in You as the source of life here and forever. Amen.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 7/98, pp. 7933 7938. Photo: Some scientists now suggest that life began in an undersea thermal vent. (PD)
BE SURE TO CHECK OUT MY ALL NEW PROPHECY AND CREATION DESIGN WEBSITES. THERE IS A LOT TO SEE AND DO..........
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.