CAVEMEN AT THE CROSSROADS
Genesis 11:8-9
“So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.”
Accounts of the supposed evolution of human beings read like the modern equivalent of fairy stories. These intricate fables often seem to mask the inability to reject evolutionary theories when they come up against unfortunate or difficult facts.
One such story tells of the migration of early homosapiens, migrating out of Africa to reach into Europe and Asia. In the Middle East, they encountered another species – homo neanderthalensis – in that area, often thought of as the crossroads of the world. The story suggests that there was interbreeding between homosapiens and neanderthals.
The reason for this fable is that DNA from neanderthals seems to have been detected in certain people groups, such as those in Europe, and not in others, such as those in Africa. This story, therefore, provides an explanation for the differences in DNA.
Of course, the concept of interbreeding with neanderthals does not cause creationists any concern. That is because, in common with some evolutionists, we would classify neanderthals as full human beings. Therefore, the interbreeding postulated is not that of one species with another but that of one tribe with another. That this should have occurred should not be considered remarkable.
The Bible clearly teaches where all people groups have come from. There has indeed been migration. That migration would have been caused by groups of people being unable to live together after the confusion of languages at the Tower of Babel. The purpose of the confusion of languages was to force humanity to scatter over the face of the Earth. All people groups – including Neanderthals – would have been scattered from that event.
Lord God, we come before You, knowing that You are great and mighty. We pray that we might do Your will, for Your glory. Amen.
Genesis 11:8-9
“So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.”
Accounts of the supposed evolution of human beings read like the modern equivalent of fairy stories. These intricate fables often seem to mask the inability to reject evolutionary theories when they come up against unfortunate or difficult facts.
One such story tells of the migration of early homosapiens, migrating out of Africa to reach into Europe and Asia. In the Middle East, they encountered another species – homo neanderthalensis – in that area, often thought of as the crossroads of the world. The story suggests that there was interbreeding between homosapiens and neanderthals.
The reason for this fable is that DNA from neanderthals seems to have been detected in certain people groups, such as those in Europe, and not in others, such as those in Africa. This story, therefore, provides an explanation for the differences in DNA.
Of course, the concept of interbreeding with neanderthals does not cause creationists any concern. That is because, in common with some evolutionists, we would classify neanderthals as full human beings. Therefore, the interbreeding postulated is not that of one species with another but that of one tribe with another. That this should have occurred should not be considered remarkable.
The Bible clearly teaches where all people groups have come from. There has indeed been migration. That migration would have been caused by groups of people being unable to live together after the confusion of languages at the Tower of Babel. The purpose of the confusion of languages was to force humanity to scatter over the face of the Earth. All people groups – including Neanderthals – would have been scattered from that event.
Lord God, we come before You, knowing that You are great and mighty. We pray that we might do Your will, for Your glory. Amen.
LARGE GRAY AND WRINKLY
Genesis 1:25
“And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”
The old joke goes: “What’s gray and has a trunk? A mouse on vacation.” Of course, we know that this is really the description of the world’s favorite animal, the elephant.
In another Creation Moment, I described Rudyard Kipling’s Just So story about the Elephant Child. But the evolutionary account of how the elephant got its trunk is not really more rational. A look at articles on Wikipedia about the evolution of the elephant reveals that they do not want to discuss the evolutionary appearance of the trunk. But the BBC was not so reticent. On their science pages, they maintain that the evolution of the trunk was essential so that the elephant could get enough food into its mouth to maintain its large size. One biological “law” suggests that the mouth and skull volumes alone are not as large as would be expected on the basis of how much elephants eat. Therefore, the trunk is necessary to get the food into the mouth faster.
There are significant problems with simple evolutionary explanations like this. Does the elephant have a trunk because of its large size? In which case, why did the large trunkless elephant not die out? Or did it develop a trunk first, which caused subsequent generations to grow larger? If so, what was the supposed evolutionary advantage of that first trunk if the animal was not large? As we frequently observe, evolution is supposed to proceed one step at a time, not two! We would observe that these features of an elephant are exactly what we would expect since they are designed by God.
Along with the hymn writer, we praise You that The Lord God Made Them All, including All Creatures Great and Small. Amen.
Genesis 1:25
“And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”
The old joke goes: “What’s gray and has a trunk? A mouse on vacation.” Of course, we know that this is really the description of the world’s favorite animal, the elephant.
In another Creation Moment, I described Rudyard Kipling’s Just So story about the Elephant Child. But the evolutionary account of how the elephant got its trunk is not really more rational. A look at articles on Wikipedia about the evolution of the elephant reveals that they do not want to discuss the evolutionary appearance of the trunk. But the BBC was not so reticent. On their science pages, they maintain that the evolution of the trunk was essential so that the elephant could get enough food into its mouth to maintain its large size. One biological “law” suggests that the mouth and skull volumes alone are not as large as would be expected on the basis of how much elephants eat. Therefore, the trunk is necessary to get the food into the mouth faster.
There are significant problems with simple evolutionary explanations like this. Does the elephant have a trunk because of its large size? In which case, why did the large trunkless elephant not die out? Or did it develop a trunk first, which caused subsequent generations to grow larger? If so, what was the supposed evolutionary advantage of that first trunk if the animal was not large? As we frequently observe, evolution is supposed to proceed one step at a time, not two! We would observe that these features of an elephant are exactly what we would expect since they are designed by God.
Along with the hymn writer, we praise You that The Lord God Made Them All, including All Creatures Great and Small. Amen.
ORIGIN OF ANIMALS
Genesis 1:24
“And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.”
According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, animals evolved from unicellular eukaryotes. Eukaryotes are cells that contain a clearly defined nucleus. This membrane enables the two stages (coding and decoding) of protein synthesis to be separated. According to the encyclopaedia, this has enabled different types of cell to evolve to do different jobs. However, no mechanism seems to be available whereby the extra information needed for this variety of cells would be created. Plants and fungi are also presumed to have evolved from such eukaryotes, but they both have semi-rigid cell walls. Animal cells do not, and it is this property that evolutionists suppose has led to the wide variety of movements and other abilities peculiar to animals.
At every stage in a supposed evolutionary process there needs to be a spontaneous production of new genetic information. Yet, the only mechanisms seen are the coding and decoding of existing information. Information is copied from DNA to RNA, then transferred in order to construct proteins.
This is why the biblical account of where animals came from is so much more scientific. The Bible refers to animals reproducing after their kind. The biblical kinds of animals comprise those pools of genetic information, outside of which animals do not breed. So all the information needed for every variety of cell and organism was found in the DNA of those kinds as originally created. Information, genetic or otherwise, is not produced by random accidents – it is planned and designed.
We marvel at the splendor and beauty of Your designs, Lord. And we marvel that You love us so much as to send Your Son to die for us. Amen.
Genesis 1:24
“And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.”
According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, animals evolved from unicellular eukaryotes. Eukaryotes are cells that contain a clearly defined nucleus. This membrane enables the two stages (coding and decoding) of protein synthesis to be separated. According to the encyclopaedia, this has enabled different types of cell to evolve to do different jobs. However, no mechanism seems to be available whereby the extra information needed for this variety of cells would be created. Plants and fungi are also presumed to have evolved from such eukaryotes, but they both have semi-rigid cell walls. Animal cells do not, and it is this property that evolutionists suppose has led to the wide variety of movements and other abilities peculiar to animals.
At every stage in a supposed evolutionary process there needs to be a spontaneous production of new genetic information. Yet, the only mechanisms seen are the coding and decoding of existing information. Information is copied from DNA to RNA, then transferred in order to construct proteins.
This is why the biblical account of where animals came from is so much more scientific. The Bible refers to animals reproducing after their kind. The biblical kinds of animals comprise those pools of genetic information, outside of which animals do not breed. So all the information needed for every variety of cell and organism was found in the DNA of those kinds as originally created. Information, genetic or otherwise, is not produced by random accidents – it is planned and designed.
We marvel at the splendor and beauty of Your designs, Lord. And we marvel that You love us so much as to send Your Son to die for us. Amen.
SEEKING THE OORT CLOUD
Psalm 8:3-4
“When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; what is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?”
Comets are fascinating objects. At their best, they can be spectacular objects in the sky, with beautiful tails pointing away from the Sun.
Deep-time astrophysicists believe that comets were formed at the time the Solar System was formed, which they believe was 4.5 billion years ago. However, there is a problem understanding the existence of comets within a deep time paradigm. This is because of the comets’ tails which only appear when the comet is close to the Sun.
The tails are caused by particles from the comet nucleus being evaporated by the Sun. This clearly means that some of the comet’s material is lost as its orbit reaches the closest point to the Sun. The amount of material lost is not insignificant. After about 10 million years, there should be no comets left. As creationists believe the Solar System is only 6,000 years old, this is not a problem for us. But evolutionary astrophysicists cope with this difficulty by suggesting that there is a cloud of comets, circling beyond the edge of the Solar System, and that every so often an object may nudge these Oort comets into closer orbit around the Sun.
New Scientist magazine says of this Oort Cloud, “We can be quite confident the Oort cloud exists even though we have never actually imaged an object.” We can’t see it, but we know it’s there! This, unfortunately, is the length that people have to go to when they do not want to start with the truth of God’s word.
Thank You, Lord, that You care for us. We look at the universe and wonder how You could care for such as us, but Your word tells us that You do, so we are thankful. Amen.
Psalm 8:3-4
“When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; what is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?”
Comets are fascinating objects. At their best, they can be spectacular objects in the sky, with beautiful tails pointing away from the Sun.
Deep-time astrophysicists believe that comets were formed at the time the Solar System was formed, which they believe was 4.5 billion years ago. However, there is a problem understanding the existence of comets within a deep time paradigm. This is because of the comets’ tails which only appear when the comet is close to the Sun.
The tails are caused by particles from the comet nucleus being evaporated by the Sun. This clearly means that some of the comet’s material is lost as its orbit reaches the closest point to the Sun. The amount of material lost is not insignificant. After about 10 million years, there should be no comets left. As creationists believe the Solar System is only 6,000 years old, this is not a problem for us. But evolutionary astrophysicists cope with this difficulty by suggesting that there is a cloud of comets, circling beyond the edge of the Solar System, and that every so often an object may nudge these Oort comets into closer orbit around the Sun.
New Scientist magazine says of this Oort Cloud, “We can be quite confident the Oort cloud exists even though we have never actually imaged an object.” We can’t see it, but we know it’s there! This, unfortunately, is the length that people have to go to when they do not want to start with the truth of God’s word.
Thank You, Lord, that You care for us. We look at the universe and wonder how You could care for such as us, but Your word tells us that You do, so we are thankful. Amen.
IDA AND LUCA
Genesis 1:1
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”
In the beginning was Ida, the initial Darwinian ancestor – the first material on Earth to transform from inert to, well, ert. Ida begat Luca, the last universal common ancestor, and the molecule that gave rise to every kind of life on Earth, from lowly bacteria to the giant panda.
So begins an unusual article in the New Scientist magazine. The article is one of a number published in NS that refers to “things we know exist, but have never seen”. So this article refers to the Initial Darwinian Ancestor, or IDA, as the first time non-living material became living material. The suggested template allows for a few stages of evolution until we get the Last Universal Common Ancestor, from which the evolution for everything else branches.
The article rightly points out an inconvenient “chicken and egg” problem.
All life uses proteins to carry out its essential functions, including making DNA and executing its code. But proteins themselves are made from DNA templates – so without DNA, no proteins. Which came first?
The article has no answer, yet concludes that it must have somehow happened because, after all, life is here. The key to the problem is in the name Initial Darwinian Ancestor. The whole problem presupposes that Darwinian evolution is true. If only the article’s author could have realized that there are many scientists, who, for legitimate scientific reasons, do not accept that Darwinian evolution happened. Then we might get an acknowledgment that no one has seen IDA or LUCA because they never existed. “In the beginning, God created” is so much more scientific than “In the beginning was Ida”.
Forgive us, Lord, for the times when we fall into folly and do not look to Your word for explanation. Help us to stand firm for the truth of Your word in a world that increasingly seems not to accept You. Amen.
Genesis 1:1
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”
In the beginning was Ida, the initial Darwinian ancestor – the first material on Earth to transform from inert to, well, ert. Ida begat Luca, the last universal common ancestor, and the molecule that gave rise to every kind of life on Earth, from lowly bacteria to the giant panda.
So begins an unusual article in the New Scientist magazine. The article is one of a number published in NS that refers to “things we know exist, but have never seen”. So this article refers to the Initial Darwinian Ancestor, or IDA, as the first time non-living material became living material. The suggested template allows for a few stages of evolution until we get the Last Universal Common Ancestor, from which the evolution for everything else branches.
The article rightly points out an inconvenient “chicken and egg” problem.
All life uses proteins to carry out its essential functions, including making DNA and executing its code. But proteins themselves are made from DNA templates – so without DNA, no proteins. Which came first?
The article has no answer, yet concludes that it must have somehow happened because, after all, life is here. The key to the problem is in the name Initial Darwinian Ancestor. The whole problem presupposes that Darwinian evolution is true. If only the article’s author could have realized that there are many scientists, who, for legitimate scientific reasons, do not accept that Darwinian evolution happened. Then we might get an acknowledgment that no one has seen IDA or LUCA because they never existed. “In the beginning, God created” is so much more scientific than “In the beginning was Ida”.
Forgive us, Lord, for the times when we fall into folly and do not look to Your word for explanation. Help us to stand firm for the truth of Your word in a world that increasingly seems not to accept You. Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.