This is the belief that all life forms have descended from a common ancestor - the first one-celled creature-and all of this happened by natural process without any intelligent intervention. God was not involved. It has been a completely blind process.
Darwinists say this happened by natural selection. But the term "natural election" is a misnomer. Since the process of evolution is, by definition, without intelligence, there is no "selection" at all going on. It's a blind process. The term "natural selection" simply means that the fittest creautures survive. That's true by definition - the fittest survive (this is called a tautology - a circular argument that doesn't prove anything). Logically, these are the creatures that are best equipped genetically or structurally to deal with changing environmental conditions (that's why they survive).
As an example of "natural selection," consider wat happens to bcteria attacked by antibiotics. When bacteria survive a bout with anitibiotics and multiply, that surviving group of bcteria may be resistant t that atibiotic. The surviving bcteria are resistant t tat antibiotic because te parent bacteria possessed the genetic capacity t resist, or arare biochemical mutation somehow helped it srvive (we ay "rare" because mutations are nearly always hrmful). Since the sensitive bacteria die, the surviving bacteria multiply and now dominate.
Darwinists say that the surviving bacteria have evolved. Having adapted to the environment, the surviving bacteria provide us with an example of evolution. Fair enough, but what kind of evolution? This is where Darwinian errors and false claims begin if not checked by those who believe observation is important to science. Here's what observation tells us: the surviving bacteria always stays bacteria. They do not evolve into another type of organism. That would be macroevolution. Natural selection has never been observed to create new types.
But macroevolution is exactly what Darwinists claim from the data. They say hese observable micro canges can be extrapolated to prove that unobservable macroevolution has occured. They make no distinction between microevolution and macroevolution, and tus use te evidence for micro to prove macro. By failing to make this critical distinction, Darwinists can dpe the general public ito tinking that ay observable change in any oganism proves that all life has evolved from te first one-celled creature.
This is why it is essential that the right distinctions be made and that all hidden assumptions be exposed when discussing the creation-evolution controversy.
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Tuesday, December 25, 2012
Specified complexity
Forget the Darwinist assertions about men descending from apes or birds evolving from reptiles. The supreme problem for Darwinists is not explaining how all life forms are related. For unguided, naturalistic macroevolution to be true, the first life mus have generated spontaneously from nonliving chemicals. Unfortunately for Darwinists, the first life - indeed any form of life - is by no means "simple." This became clear in 1953 when James Watson and Francis Crick discovered DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), the chemical that ecodes instructions for buildings and replicating all living things. DNA has a helical structure that looks like a twisted ladder. The sides of the ladder are formed by alternating deoxribose and phosphate molecules, and the rungs of the ladder consist of a specific order of four nitrogen bases. The nitrogen bases are adenine, thymine, cytosine, and guanine, which commonly are represented by the letters A,T,C, and G. These letters comprise what is known as the four-letter genetic alphabet. This alphabet is identical to our English alphabet in terms of its ability to communicate a message, except that the genetic alphabet has only four letters instead of twenty-six. Just as the specific order of the letters in this sentence communicates a unique message, the specific order of A,T,C, and G within a living cell determines the unique genetic makeup of that living entity. Another name for that message or information, whether it's in a sentence or in DNA, is "specified complexity." In other words, not only is it complex - it also contains a specific message.
This incredible specified complexity of life becomes obvious when one considers the message found in the DNA of a one-celled amoeba (a creature so small, several could be lined up in an inch). Staunch Darwinist Richard Dawkins, admits that the message found in just the cell nucleus of a tiny amoeba is more than all thirty volumes of Encyclopedia BrItannica combined, and the entire amoeba has much information in ita DNA as 1,000 complete sets.
So here's the question, a simple message such as this one, requires an intelligent being, then why doesn't a message of 1,000 encyclopedias long require one?
Darwinists can't answer that question by showing how natural laws could do the job. Instead, they define the rules of science so narrowly that intelligence is ruled out in advance, leaving natural laws as the only game in twn.
Sunday, December 23, 2012
An Immense Amount of Manuscripts
Today, we have a veritable storehouse of manuscripts of the Christian Greek Scriptures. By comparison, a mere handful of manuscripts, represent other ancient writings, and these are centuries removed from their originals. Fifty manuscripts can be attributed to the plays of Aeschylus, with 100 going to Sophocles, a mere one manuscript each to Titus' Greek Anthology and Annals, three Catullus' poems, and about as Euripides, Cicero, Ovid, and Virgil. On the other hand, the New Testament has some 5,750 manuscripts in Greek, 10,000 in Latin, and 1,000 in other languages, giving us a total of close to 15,000 manuscripts. Even though many are fragments, some are a sizeable portion, and others are a whole. It must be kept in mind that the 27 books of the Christian Greek Scriptures were originally penned in the latter part of the first century [50 - 100 C.E.]; with over 100 of these papyrus manuscripts that are extant (still in existence), having been dated between 110 and 300 C.E.
Textual Criticism The Fundamentals
Many Christians whom I have asked if they knew what 'textual criticism' was don't have the slightest idea. I hear often times, "what's that?"
Textual Critiscism is not to be confused with Higher Criticism. TC is the study of any written work of which the autograph is unknown, with the purpose of assertaining the original text. Hundreds of textual scholars over the last 400 - years have given their lives to this work. One can feel most confident that our NA27 and our UBS4 master Greek texts are predominately the same as the originals that were penned so long ago. Bible scholars Norman L. Geisler and William Nix conclude: "The New Testament, then, has not only survived in more manuscripts than any other book from antiquity, but it has survived in a purer form than any other great book - a form that is 99.5 percent pure."
So, Textual Criticism is both an art and a science. It is a science because it has principles or guidelines that must be followed. Additionally, it is an art because it is all about balance in applying those principles. It is a careful comparison of all known original language manuscripts (including lectionaries) and versions of the Bible in other languages (for example, Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian), as well as patristic quotations in order to determine the original reading. This would include the elimination of any additions that may have crept into the text, as well as restoring any portion that may have been removed by accident. This work is often referred to as "lower criticism," which is constructive criticism; it should be set be set apart from "higher criticism," which is typically destructive criticism.
Textual Critiscism is not to be confused with Higher Criticism. TC is the study of any written work of which the autograph is unknown, with the purpose of assertaining the original text. Hundreds of textual scholars over the last 400 - years have given their lives to this work. One can feel most confident that our NA27 and our UBS4 master Greek texts are predominately the same as the originals that were penned so long ago. Bible scholars Norman L. Geisler and William Nix conclude: "The New Testament, then, has not only survived in more manuscripts than any other book from antiquity, but it has survived in a purer form than any other great book - a form that is 99.5 percent pure."
So, Textual Criticism is both an art and a science. It is a science because it has principles or guidelines that must be followed. Additionally, it is an art because it is all about balance in applying those principles. It is a careful comparison of all known original language manuscripts (including lectionaries) and versions of the Bible in other languages (for example, Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian), as well as patristic quotations in order to determine the original reading. This would include the elimination of any additions that may have crept into the text, as well as restoring any portion that may have been removed by accident. This work is often referred to as "lower criticism," which is constructive criticism; it should be set be set apart from "higher criticism," which is typically destructive criticism.
Saturday, December 22, 2012
Mystery Religions
The so-called 'mystery religions' were a variety of religious movements from the eastern Mediterranean that flourished in te early Roman Empire. They offered salvation in a tight-knit community. They were called mystery religions because those who were initiated into them were sworn to secrecy. They had sacred rites, often a common meal, and a special sanctuary.
The oldest of the Mystery Religions would be the Eleusinian cult of Demeter, which was already established in the Archaic Age of Greece, which would be from 800 to 500 BC. The latest, and certainly the most popular in the later Roman Empire, was the mysteries of Mithras, who started as a Persian god. There were also the mysteries of Cybele and Attis, which were restricted to non-Romans until the middle or late first century.
These religions were tied to the vegetation cycle. The group that later popularized the idea that Jesus' resurrection was derived from the worsship of dying and rising fertility gods was a group of scholars known as Religions-geschichtliche schule. The so-called History of Religions School, which flourished at the end of the nineteenth and into the early twentieth centuries. The seminal work by Richard Reitzenstein was published in German in 1910 but not translated into English until 1978. He thought the sacrifice of Christ aligned itself wth the killing of a bull by Mithras. Carsten Colpe and others severely criticized the anachronistic use of sources by these scholars.
On the popular level, Sir James Frazer gathered a mass of parallels in his multivolume work called The Golden Bough, which was published in 1906. He discussed Osiris of Egypt, Adonis of Syria, Attis of Asia Minor, and Tammuz of Mesopotamia, and concluded there was a common rising and dying fertility god. Unfortunately, much of his work was based on misreading of the evidence, but nevertheless this helped introduce these ideas to popular culture. Later, in the 1930s, three influential French scholars claimed that Christianity was influenced by the Hellenistic mystery religions.
One of those scholars said Christ was a 'savior-god, after the manner of an Osiris, an Attis, a Mithras... Like Adonis, Osiris, and Attis, he died a violent death, and like them he returned to life.
Popular writers made the mistake of taking various fragments of information and manufacturing 'a knd of universal Mystery-religion which never actually existed, at least of all in Paul's day. there was a widespread view that there was a general, common mystery religion, but upon a closer examination of the sources, nobody belives that any longer. Today most Bible scholars regard the question as dead.
The oldest of the Mystery Religions would be the Eleusinian cult of Demeter, which was already established in the Archaic Age of Greece, which would be from 800 to 500 BC. The latest, and certainly the most popular in the later Roman Empire, was the mysteries of Mithras, who started as a Persian god. There were also the mysteries of Cybele and Attis, which were restricted to non-Romans until the middle or late first century.
These religions were tied to the vegetation cycle. The group that later popularized the idea that Jesus' resurrection was derived from the worsship of dying and rising fertility gods was a group of scholars known as Religions-geschichtliche schule. The so-called History of Religions School, which flourished at the end of the nineteenth and into the early twentieth centuries. The seminal work by Richard Reitzenstein was published in German in 1910 but not translated into English until 1978. He thought the sacrifice of Christ aligned itself wth the killing of a bull by Mithras. Carsten Colpe and others severely criticized the anachronistic use of sources by these scholars.
On the popular level, Sir James Frazer gathered a mass of parallels in his multivolume work called The Golden Bough, which was published in 1906. He discussed Osiris of Egypt, Adonis of Syria, Attis of Asia Minor, and Tammuz of Mesopotamia, and concluded there was a common rising and dying fertility god. Unfortunately, much of his work was based on misreading of the evidence, but nevertheless this helped introduce these ideas to popular culture. Later, in the 1930s, three influential French scholars claimed that Christianity was influenced by the Hellenistic mystery religions.
One of those scholars said Christ was a 'savior-god, after the manner of an Osiris, an Attis, a Mithras... Like Adonis, Osiris, and Attis, he died a violent death, and like them he returned to life.
Popular writers made the mistake of taking various fragments of information and manufacturing 'a knd of universal Mystery-religion which never actually existed, at least of all in Paul's day. there was a widespread view that there was a general, common mystery religion, but upon a closer examination of the sources, nobody belives that any longer. Today most Bible scholars regard the question as dead.
Friday, December 21, 2012
Law of Thermodynamics
Modern scientists know that a beginning and an ending are demanded by one of the most validated laws in all nature - the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Thermodynamics is the study of matter and energy, and the Second Law states, among other things, that the universe is running out of usable energy. With each passing moment, the amount of usable energy in the universe grows smaller, leading scientists to the obvious conclusion that one day all the energy will be gone and the universe will die. Like a running car, the universe will ultimately run out of gas.
You say, "So what? How does that prove that the universe had a beginning?" Well, look at it this way: the First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total amount of energy in the universe is constant. In other words, the universe has only a finite amount of energy (much as your car has only a finite amount of gas (the First Law), and whenever it's running it continually consumes gas (the Second Law), would your car be running right now if you had started it up an infinitely long time ago? No, of course not. It would be out of gas by now. In the same way, the universe would be out of energy by now if it had been running from all eternity.
The Second Law is also known as the Law of Entropy, which is a fancy way of saying that nature tends to bring things to disorder. That is, with time, things naturally fall apart. Your car falls apart; your house falls apart; your body falls apart. But if the universe is becoming less ordered, then where did the original order come from? Astronomer Robert Jastrow likens the universe to a wound-up clock. If a wind-up clock is running down, then someone must have wound it up.
The aspect of the Second Law tells us that the universe had a beginning.
Thermodynamics is the study of matter and energy, and the Second Law states, among other things, that the universe is running out of usable energy. With each passing moment, the amount of usable energy in the universe grows smaller, leading scientists to the obvious conclusion that one day all the energy will be gone and the universe will die. Like a running car, the universe will ultimately run out of gas.
You say, "So what? How does that prove that the universe had a beginning?" Well, look at it this way: the First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total amount of energy in the universe is constant. In other words, the universe has only a finite amount of energy (much as your car has only a finite amount of gas (the First Law), and whenever it's running it continually consumes gas (the Second Law), would your car be running right now if you had started it up an infinitely long time ago? No, of course not. It would be out of gas by now. In the same way, the universe would be out of energy by now if it had been running from all eternity.
The Second Law is also known as the Law of Entropy, which is a fancy way of saying that nature tends to bring things to disorder. That is, with time, things naturally fall apart. Your car falls apart; your house falls apart; your body falls apart. But if the universe is becoming less ordered, then where did the original order come from? Astronomer Robert Jastrow likens the universe to a wound-up clock. If a wind-up clock is running down, then someone must have wound it up.
The aspect of the Second Law tells us that the universe had a beginning.
Law of Causality
Some people insist that there is no need for God and bring up science to 'try' prove there is no God. I say that science doesn't disprove that there is no God but rather proves He is real. How can we know for sure God exists? By getting back to the basics. People tend to speak of science but leave out the basics of it. So I will try to make this as basic as I can.
Frank Turek and Norman Geisler in their book 'I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Athiest' write, "for an argument to be true it has to be logically valid, and its premises must be true."
1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore the universe had a cause.
This is a valid argument, but are the premises true? Let's take a look at the premises.
Premises 1 - Everything that had a beginning had a cause - is the Law of Causality, which is the fundamental principle of science. Without the Law of Causality, science is impossible. In other words, science is a search for causes. That's what scientists do - they try to discover what caused what. Even the skeptic David Hume could not deny the Law of Causality. He wrote, "I never asserted so absured a proposition as that something could arise without a cause."
In fact, to deny the Law of Causality is to deny rationality. The very process of rational thinking requires us to put together thoughts (the causes) that result in conclusions (the effects).
Since the Law of Causality is well established and undeniable, premises 1 is true. What about premise 2? Did the universe have a beginning? If not, then no cause was need. If so, then the universe must have had a cause.
Frank Turek and Norman Geisler in their book 'I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Athiest' write, "for an argument to be true it has to be logically valid, and its premises must be true."
1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore the universe had a cause.
This is a valid argument, but are the premises true? Let's take a look at the premises.
Premises 1 - Everything that had a beginning had a cause - is the Law of Causality, which is the fundamental principle of science. Without the Law of Causality, science is impossible. In other words, science is a search for causes. That's what scientists do - they try to discover what caused what. Even the skeptic David Hume could not deny the Law of Causality. He wrote, "I never asserted so absured a proposition as that something could arise without a cause."
In fact, to deny the Law of Causality is to deny rationality. The very process of rational thinking requires us to put together thoughts (the causes) that result in conclusions (the effects).
Since the Law of Causality is well established and undeniable, premises 1 is true. What about premise 2? Did the universe have a beginning? If not, then no cause was need. If so, then the universe must have had a cause.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)