The Uniformitarians

20181005_1351525879507706738633709.jpg

It sounds like the Title of a new Stephen King book. “The Uniformitarians”. Pretty scary stuff. But in reality it is another facade adapted by the secular scientific community. Geologists and cosmologists pretend to apply the rules of the universe as we now seen them, and predict the past (supposedly some 14 billions years) based on current laws of physics and current rates of physical processes. Uniformitarianism states that the changes in the past can be predicted because it involves “continuous and uniform processes”. Sounds great, but then they change the rules whenever it suits them…

As defined in the dictionary (originating in Geology but used in cosmology as well):

u·ni·form·i·tar·i·an·ism

 

ˌyo͞onəˌfôrməˈterēənizəm/

 

noun
GEOLOGY the theory that changes in the earth’s crust during geological history have resulted from the action of continuous and uniform processes.

 

As further explained in Wikipedia, it is “an unprovable postulate that cannot be verified using the scientific method”.(1)

Uniformitarianism, also known as the Doctrine of Uniformity,[1][2] refers to the invariance in the principles underpinning science, such as the constancy of causality, or causation, throughout time,[3] but it has also been used to describe invariance of physical laws through time and space.[4] Though an unprovable postulate that cannot be verified using the scientific method, uniformitarianism has been a key first principle of virtually all fields of science.(1)

It is important to note that the Doctrine of Uniformity and the principle of Uniformitarianism are unprovable. (Especially when so many secular scientist claim they KNOW the age of the Earth and the age of the Universe.) But there is another consideration that is perhaps even more important in practice and in principle.

The principle of uniformitarianism has never truly been applied, because in every setting of science, whether astronomy, cosmology, evolutionary biology, or geology, there are glaring problems that require major adaptions or exceptions for the principle to be even loosely applied. As stated by Roger Patterson, “The ideas presented in the textbooks are based on uniformitarian assumptions and have many problems that are not discussed, despite the presence of phrases like “we know” and “scientists have shown”. (2) For example these secular scientist apply the rules of modern physics to the formation of the universe under the Nebular Hypothesis. But according to the rules of physics, the particles that might or might not form after such an explosion would not stick together (coalesce) or undergo accretion, and thus could not form planets, or stars, or galaxies. Further, they would of necessity have had to travel at speeds far greater than the speed of light, an obvious and absurd exception to the principles of physics and uniformitarianism.

Or as another example, in the study of biology, there is a well know and accepted “Law of Abiogenesis”. It is, simply stated, “life cannot come from non life”, or in other words non living matter cannot spontaneously come to life. Everyone knows this is true. Everyone accepts this, except if you believe in Evolution. In order to believe in evolution, you must first accept that life magically created itself out of a bunch of random chemicals, and then reproduced itself. Each step is impossible, but yet this is what our institutes of “higher learning” expect students to accept.

Let me give one more example. The Moon rocks collected from the Moon were dated at 4.5 billion years of age using secular “uniformitarian” assumptions. But using the lunar recession models (based on current rates, or even “adjusted” rates) the Moon would have been quite literally touching the earth just a billion years or so in the past. So the scientists make exceptions, or disallow the evidence, or ignore the findings, but they cannot uniformly apply them.

Geology offers many other examples, in which current processes could not have created the earth as we find it. Fossil layers, rates of mountain erosion, sea floor sediment deposition, and polystrate fossils could not have occurred as described by the Old Age Earth textbooks. The rate of uplift of the Himalayas is FAR too great to be accounted for by Uniformatarian assumptions.

In many cases the Biblical Flood offers a much more sensible model than uniformitarianism.  As an example, did you know that one single mine in Canada’s tar sands can move thirty billion tons of sediment a year? That is double the amount moved by all the rivers in the world combined. Imagine the amounts which might be moved or shifted during Ice ages, meteor impacts, massive volcanic eruptions, or a Global Flood! it is so astronomical that it boggles the mind… and completely discounts any possibility of geographic “uniformitarian” assumptions.

Nevertheless, even though Old Age estimates violate their own premises of “uniform and continuous processes”, the geology texts insist on Old Age estimates for the Earth. (see earlier blogs on “Ancient… Where’s the Proof” and “Bang… and Nothing”, and “The Data in the Strata.”

And in yet another strong refutation, Uniformitarian assumptions on evolution should show that somewhere in the world, species are evolving as we speak. In order for the billions upon billions of evolutionary changes necessary to have occurred in just a millions of years, we should see evolution regularly as species advance along the evolutionary scale. Yet in the entire recorded history of the world, thousands of years, we have no record of a single example of evolution.

So whenever a biology or geology prof tells you something is billions of years old, you can be sure there is more than sufficient evidence to dispute that statement. Do your research, and the Uniformitarian assumptions of Old Earth and Old Universe will fall apart.  Uniformitarian assumptions are unproven, unscientific, and insufficient for determining history, and they are certainly inadequate by any definition for evaluating or proving anything about origins. Uniformitarianism gets an F in History.

 

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism

(2) Patterson, R., Evolution Exposed, Answers in Genesis, 2008, P. 68.

 

For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. — Romans 1:20 NLT

(For more on similar topics see prior blogs on “Lemmings” and What about Fossils”)

Atheism is a BLAST

beautiful celebrate celebration colorful
Photo by Александр Прокофьев on Pexels.com

Don’t let the cosmologists try to kid you on this one. They have not got a clue either– despite the fact that they are doing a pretty good job of convincing themselves and others that this is really not a problem. “In the beginning, ” they will say, “there was nothing– no time, space matter or energy. Then there was a quantum fluctuation from which…” Whoa! Stop right there. You see what I mean”… Then they are away and before you know it , they have pulled an hundred billion galaxies out of their quantum hats. David Darling (1)

Atheism is a blast. In fact the cosmology of atheism relies on faith in the Big Bang, the biggest explosion of something from nothing that could ever possibly be imagined.

Astrophysicist Paul Sutter of The Ohio State University writes, “At 13.8 billion years ago, our entire observable universe was the size of a peach and had a temperature of over a trillion degrees.”(2) Admittedly this is a pretty bold statement. Is it supported by some evidence? Yes. But proven? Nope. Supported by the majority of the evidence? Certainly not.

John Watson of Techreader.com, writes about the Big Bang,”The first is that there is a good reason it is only called a “theory”. The proponents of this theory would have you believe that it is set in stone and factual; but this is far from the truth. In fact, the Big Bang theory has so many holes that there is not enough evidence to even confidently say that it could even possibly be valid.”(3)

Harvard’s astrophysics site states, “Although astronomers understand what the universe was like just a few seconds after the Big Bang, no one yet knows what happened at the instant of the Big Bang – or what came before. What powered the Big Bang? Where did all the stuff in the universe come from in the first place? What was the universe like just before the Big Bang?”(4) (Italics added) Now, while I think that it is a gross overstatement (some might call it a lie) to say astronomers understand what the universe was like a few seconds after the big bang, at least they admit they have no idea where the big bang came from.

Sutter and other astrophysicists can support the Big Bang claim as a possibility because of the observed red shift, and the relative local deficiency of quasars, and the presence of some background radiation that might have come from a big bang. But they have to accept it on faith, and they have to also downplay a large number of problems with their Big Bang explanation of the universe.

For starters, the Big Bang as an explanation of origins violates both the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. The big bang violates the widely held belief that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. (See Inflationary Period in earlier articles). The Big Bang also has problems known as the Horizon problem, Flatness (or Oldness) problem, and the Monopole problem. The Big Bang violates Einstein’s General Law of Relativity. The Big bang has a Supernova problem, and a problem that we can see fully formed galaxies that are supposedly 10.8 billion light years away, when they should still appear as if early in the process of formation.(5)

But that is just the beginning. For example… we should be able to see an older and older universe as we look further and further away. But we don’t. We should see much more uniformity after such an explosion, but we don’t. There should be some sort of evidence of Dark Matter or Dark Energy, but there are not (and all the Big Bang cosmology equations require them). Evidence shows the galaxies could NOT have coalesced, but there they are.

So, once again, we see from an objective scientific viewpoint that those who tell our youth that the Big Bang is a scientifically proven fact are at best misled, and at worst brazen liars. The Big Bang requires either 1) suspension of scientific reason, or 2) a vast amount of faith. And that is just for the Big Bang.

Secular atheism also requires faith in Abiogenesis (life magically appearing from non-life), and in the Cambrian explosion (which is, simply put, that all the sudden about 500 hundred million years ago all the forms of life suddenly decided to appear on earth at approximately the same time). I will say more about the Cambrian explosion in the next blog. But if I have not stretched your faith in science too much… here is what the Lord says about it.

Isaiah 42:5
This is what God the Lord says—
the Creator of the heavens, who stretches them out,
who spreads out the earth with all that springs from it,
who gives breath to its people,
and life to those who walk on it:

(1) David Darling “On Creating Something from Nothing,” New Scientist 151 (1996):49

(2) https://www.space.com/40370-why-should-we-believe-big-bang.html

(3) https://thetechreader.com/top-ten/top-ten-scientific-flaws-in-the-big-bang-theory/

(4) https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/bb_whatpowered.htm

(5) Patterson, R. Evolution Exposed, 2008, Answers in Genesis. p58

 

(For more, see prior posts on “Bang… and Nothing” and “Just the Facts”)

Leap of faith… but then what?

Atheists and secular humanists are at the forefront of the Old Age Universe chronology. The teaching in most secular institutions encourages every H.S. and university student in the country to abandon any faith in the Bible and accept our status as advanced apes. Some instructors approach their destruction of biblical faith with a zeal that would be the envy of many missionaries. But which comes first, the atheism or the scientific conclusions? I believe the spiritual assumptions predate and often dictate the scientific opinions.

If one has questions about the Bible that are not easily explained or understood in human terms, it can sometimes cause people to abandon their faith. But then a major question looms. By abandoning your faith, or by rejecting the Bible, do you somehow find the answer to your questions? Many modern secular atheists are firmly convinced that they must reject Christianity, and God, and the Bible because they cannot explain, for instance, suffering, or miracles, or “where God came from”.

But is it sensible when atheists say that because there is suffering in the world, they cannot believe in God? They opine that if God is good He cannot be omnipotent and if He is omnipotent He cannot be good. “I can’t believe in the God of the Bible because there is suffering in the world.” OK. Now you don’t believe in the God of the Bible because of suffering. Do you now have an adequate explanation for why there is suffering in the world? Does atheism or humanism provide adequate explanation? Does the world become fair, or just, or does suffering depart with your rejection of the Supreme Being? Or is it possible that suffering is here precisely to point us back to God?

If God is both good and omnipotent, and He allows suffering, or if it is a part of His creation, then in some manner or form it must work to the good. In other words, without suffering, some particular good that might occur, cannot occur. In fact you can say that there must be a form of goodness or a benefit to humanity that is so great that it outweighs all the suffering, or else either the omnipotence or the goodness of God is in question.

This is not so difficult to accept for the believer. Christians have been raised on the truth of Romans 8:28, “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.” (KJV) Joni Eareckson Tada, for instance, after 50 years of physical suffering from a broken neck and quadriplegia, can still travel and lecture and inspire millions with her faith and her undying affection for her Lord. She says, “And rather than try to frantically escape the pain, I relearned the timeless lesson of allowing my suffering to push me deeper into the arms of Jesus. I like to think of my pain as a sheepdog that keeps snapping at my heels to drive me down the road to Calvary, where, otherwise, I would not be naturally inclined to go.”(1) She can see in her own life and suffering, a lesson for herself and others that is of great eternal benefit. But suffering may still be a major stumbling block to many nonbelievers.

C S Lewis had a great deal to say on the subject of pain and suffering. First, he noted that humanity can often be not just tone deaf, but almost totally and completely insensate to many of our greatest spiritual needs, and sometimes God uses pain or suffering to get our attention. “We can ignore even pleasure. But pain insists upon being attended to. God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: it is his megaphone to rouse a deaf world.” C.S. Lewis, in The Problem of Pain.

You see, if you accept our physical bodies as a starting point, many spiritual things are not only confusing, but seemingly nonsensical. From the perspective of humanity (the flesh) God is there to serve us, not the other way around. Or as Lewis put it, “We regard God as an airman regards his parachute; it’s there for emergencies but he hopes he’ll never have to use it.” (Lewis, The Problem of Pain) This means pain and suffering are viewed as an enemy to be avoided, rather than a possible teacher to bring us to the truth.

But if we accept the possibility that we are primarily spiritual beings, temporarily housed in a physical shell, then we may obtain an entirely different view of suffering. Suffering may be the absolute necessity, the greatest of benefits, the most instructive teacher, if it leads us to a higher spiritual understanding. In fact, it may be such an essential thing that we could not even be fully human without it! “Try to exclude the possibility of suffering which the order of nature and the existence of free-wills involve, and you find that you have excluded life itself” (Lewis) So we see that pain and suffering do not in any but the most superficial way exclude God, or his omnipotence, or his love, or his goodness.

But what of other objections to the Bible? Many persons, atheists and non-Christians alike, object to Jesus statements indicating that He is the only way to Heaven. In John 14:6 Jesus says “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” This is quite objectionable to the secular humanist or, for example, to the believer in Mohammed. But objectionable or not, the point remains, either it is true or it is false. It is not a thing to be treated lightly, or ignored. It is a thing of eternal implications. Jesus existence is either a fact or it is not. His place above all creation as the Son of God is either Truth or falsehood. But one’s objection to it is not really even relevant to the Creation/Evolution or Big Bang argument. So when a secular humanist or atheist tells you they prefer the Big Bang over creation as an explanation of origins, because they don’t believe that Jesus is the Son of God, or that there is a God at all, you may wish to ask how that might be relevant to the conversation.

The ultimate fact is that we cannot escape the concept, the reality, or the consequences of faith. Faith exists. Choice exists. Reality exists. The only question is what we choose to have faith in. Faith in the Big bang leads to one particular set of consequences, both for the individual and for society. Faith in Christ leads to an entirely different set of consequences. Choose carefully.

Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

Romans 1:20 NLT Ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God

(1) http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/a-purpose-in-the-pain-an-interview-with-joni-eareckson-tada/

(2) C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain, 1940, Harper Collins, NY. NY

(For more see prior blog on “Who are you going to trust”)

Real Science

Real science, unpretentious and unassuming is this, to investigate the wonders of Creation with all the powers of our God given intellectual capacity, and to maintain truth and objectivity at all costs.” ANM

There has been an ongoing debate about the objectivity and credentials of “science” subtended to the debate over creation vs evolution. For over a hundred years, and especially since the State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes in 1925, there has been a silent, mostly unspoken assumption that one must choose sides. One must either come down on the side of science or on the side of religion. But more recently this has been exposed as a false dichotomy.

In recent years each side of the debate has seemed to approach the topic of evolution, and of the origins of man and the universe, with a sense of religious fervor. In today’s society it could be seen as the battle of the pulpit vs the lectern. In conservative, Bible trusting congregations, the faithful are encouraged to trust the Bible as the Word of God and to view History, the world, and human nature through the lens of scripture. In the secular universities, our youth are told there is no God, the Bible is a myth, and both Life and the Universe originated out of nothing, for no particular reason at all.

Each side seeks to convert others to their point of view, and in recent years, it would seem that the secular view is “winning” the debate, as tens of millions of youth leave the nest, go to universities, and are taught the “truth” of the scientific method, and lectured on the many supposed contradictions of the Bible. After a few years of exposure to the secular worldview, accompanied by a great deal of encouragement to shed the encumbrances of religion and the Ten Commandments, they graduate to freely express their lives and especially their sexuality as they choose.

In a sense it became a great social experiment, starting with the war protests and the sexual revolution of the 1960’s, and progressing to the free availability of abortion, coed dorms at universities, rampant alcohol and mood altering chemical use, and the acceptance of the secular worldview as supreme on essentially all the major campuses and most of the communities of our country. Most will now admit that the experiment has had enormous unanticipated social implications. There has been an epidemic of depression and mental health problems. There has been a breakup of the family. There has been an increasing disrespect for law, and for legal authority. There has been a massive, deadly epidemic of substance abuse, killing tens of millions and leaving entire generations of children fatherless or motherless.

But what if the entire debate, the whole experiment, was based on false premises? What if our understanding of what is science, and what is religion, is fundamentally flawed? What if instead of freeing our children from the encumbrances of religion, we have merely substituted one religion for another? What if at the same time, instead of teaching the benefits of the scientific method, we have inadvertently advanced and propagated the religion of scientism? (See previous post on Scientism)

James 1:27 states, “Pure religion and undefiled before our God and Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.” (ASV) Jesus said “Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.” (NIV) This was the religion taught in our churches and universities prior to the secular revolution. But the religion now taught in schools is secular humanism, the belief that humanity is capable of morality and self fulfillment without the need for any belief in God. Abortion in this worldview is fine. Drugs? Why not? Homosexuality, polygamy, or pedophilia? Sure. Just don’t dispute global warming and you can do whatever else you choose.

But if real religion has been replaced with scientism and secular humanism, what has replaced real science? I believe it is accurate to state, “Real science, unpretentious and unassuming is this, to investigate the wonders of Creation with all the powers of our God given intellectual capacity, and to maintain truth and objectivity at all costs.” But this is not at all what is practiced in our institutions of higher learning. What has replaced real science? The answer is, again, scientism and secular humanism. The wild speculations of Dawkins, Hawking, Darwin, and Marx. One may advance any theory whatever about the origin of comets, or life, or the moon. One may believe any incredible explanation for the impossibility of evolution. One may postulate any variation of the big bang and explain its deficiencies with any form of wild hypothesis. But you must not under any circumstances advance a theory that involves God, or Creation. This is madness, This is academic and political suicide.

If you agree, please feel free to share.

“You are right in speaking of the moral foundations of science, but you cannot turn around and speak of the scientific foundations of morality.”
Albert Einstein

Proverbs 2:6 For the LORD gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding.

(For more on similar topics see prior blog on “Science vs Scientism” and “Scoffers”)

Pluto and The Mickey Mouse Astronomers

animation cartoon cartoon character disney
Photo by Skitterphoto on Pexels.com

Atheist and secular astronomers have taught for decades that our solar system is billions of years old. Most secular astronomers currently believe it is 4.6 billion years old. Yet evidence continues to come in from space probes, space telescopes, and astronomy that may disprove such an old age for the solar system.

Starting at the center, we have two immediate problems. First the sun is spinning much too slowly for the solar system to have formed according to astronomers, and second, there has long been known a “faint young sun paradox.” This means that at the time that evolutionists say the earth was a tropical greenhouse packed with lush vegetation and dinosaurs, astrophysicists say the sun was much cooler and the earth would have been an ice ball incapable of sustaining life. Wikipedia explains:

The faint young Sun paradox or faint young Sun problem describes the apparent contradiction between observations of liquid water early in the Earth’s history, and the astrophysical expectation that the Sun’s output would be only 70 percent as intense during that epoch as it is during the modern epoch.(1)

In addition, there is a “warm planet paradox” in which NASA has found that several planets (Saturn, Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune) emit more radiation than they receive from the sun. This should not be possible after billions of years. In addition, several planets also have magnetic fields and volcanoes which should have long been extinct if they were indeed billions of years old. Various theories have been proposed for how this might happen, but none make nearly as much sense as a young Solar System. In point of fact, no computer program has ever been devised to show how these large planets could have even formed so far from the sun in less than 10 billion years.

Then consider that astronomers cannot explain why we still have comets. They have postulated (invented) the Oort cloud to explain why they are still here billions of years after they should have all burned out. But as Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan wrote in 1985 (still true today), “Many scientific papers have been written each year about the Oort Cloud, its properties, its origin, its evolution. Yet there is not yet a shred of direct observational evidence for its existence.”(2)

They don’t know why Saturn’s rings are still clear and bright (3), or how tiny distant Pluto could still be geologically active when by all astronomical calculations it should have been a cold, dead, lump of rock billions of years ago. (4) Nor can any astronomer explain why the moon, which is moving away from the earth at one and a half inches per year, was not touching the earth only a billion or so years ago (this is a big problem when the Earth and moon are supposed to be over 4 billion years old, and life on earth is itself highly dependent on the moon and tides).

No matter what the facts show, you can be sure that a secular atheist scientist will see an old universe, because as Harry Nillson told us in The Point, “You see what you want to see and you hear what you want to hear”. But Christians can be comfortable in the knowledge that there is far more scientific evidence for a young earth and a young universe than for an old earth. No matter what some “Mickey Mouse” astronomer tells you about Pluto, be assured that God created our little planetary friend, and it did not happen billions of years in the past.

Psalm 19:1-3- The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge. They have no speech, they use no words; no sound is heard from them.

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_paradox

(2) Sagan, C and Druyan, A, Comets New York, Random House, 1985, p. 201

(3) Hebert, J. Secular Scientists Dumbfounded by Saturn’s Young Rings, Creation Science Update, January 18, 2019

(4) Hebert, J. Our Young Solar System, Acts and Facts 47;(9) Sept 2018, pp. 10-13.

(For more on similar topics see “Ancient? Where’s the Proof”)

The “Created” Chimp Genome

view ape thinking primate
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

For over a decade evolutionists have touted the supposed 98.6 percent similarity of the human and chimp genome as “proof” of chimp to human evolution. Creation scientists and geneticists were skeptical.   The impossibility of evolution of  over 40 million base pairs (about 1.5 % of the human genome) in the short span of a few million years proposed for these changes by atheistic scientists was ignored.  Evolutionists assured every high school and college student in America that they “knew” that evolution had occurred based on these “small” differences.

But as pointed out by Dr Jon Cohen, in “The Myth of 1%”, these are NOT small differences.  “First, as noted, we’re not talking about “small changes” but rather, as the journal Science explained, at the very least these differences entail “35 million base-pair changes, 5 million indels in each species, and 689 extra genes in humans.” (1) This means it would have required massive amounts of new genetic information via mutations… a thing which has never been proven to occur even once.

But now a 2016 article by Dr Jeffrey Tomkins Ph.D., Director of Life Sciences at the Institute for Creation Research, shows that even those ridiculously positive inter-species comparisons were wrong.  The actual amount of similarity between human and chimp genomes in recent, more accurate scientific studies was vastly lower.  He states it is in the low 80’s at best. That would mean there are not 35 million, but about 500 million base pair differences! He explains in detail why the original estimates were inaccurate and why the newer numbers are far more accurate. (3) Such a vast genetic difference completely destroys the weak and tenuous pro-evolutionary arguments.

Biologist Dr Richard Buggs, also states that we have no more than an 85% similarity.  In his recent Biologos post he wrote, “the total percentage of the human genome that I can know for sure has one-to-one orthology with the chimp genome is 84.4%. Therefore I would say to the man on the street: we know for sure that the human genome is 84.4% the same as the chimpanzee genome“.  (4)

Now compare the human-chimp ratios to the human-zebrafish similarities. “Sequencing of the entire genetic make-up of the zebrafish has revealed that 70 per cent of protein-coding human genes are related to genes found in the zebrafish and that 84 per cent of genes known to be associated with human disease have a zebrafish counterpart.” (5)  Does anyone really think we have recently evolved from zebrafish?  Of course not!

In the end, it looks like the Chimp Genome and the Human Genome are indeed vastly different.  It appears they were created uniquely and individually and purposefully.  This is just one more nail in the coffin of evolutionary theory.

 

(1)  Jon Cohen, “Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%,” Science, Vol. 316:1836 (June 29, 2007).

(2)  Casey Luskin “Critically Analyzing the Argument from Human/Chimpanzee Genetic Similarity”, September 30, 2011, Evolution News and Science Today.

(3) Tonkins, J 2016, Analysis of 101 Chimpanzee Trace Read Data Sets: Assessment of Their Overall Similarity to Human and Possible Contamination with human DNA.  Answers Research Journal 9: 294-298.

(4) Buggs, R.  How similar are human and chimpanzee genomes: posted on RichardBuggs.com, July 14, 2018

(5) http://www.sci-news.com/genetics/article01036.html

(For similar readings see”Evolving Misconceptions” and “Vestigial Organs”)

Womankind?

art backlit dawn dusk
Photo by luizclas on Pexels.com

Genesis 5:2 He created them male and female and blessed them. And he named them “Mankind” when they were created.

I just read 25 translations of this verse, and in every case the Bible said the same thing. God created them Male and Female. It did not say the doctor decided when the child was born. It did not say the parents decided because they wanted a boy instead of a girl. It did not even say that the person him or herself decided. On the authority of scripture, with no question of an accurate translation, we can rest assured that we are CREATED, by the all powerful God of the universe, male or female.

In fact, all 25 translations also repeat the statement in slightly different form in the NT, saying in Mark 10:6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’

Why is this relevant in a scientific blog about creation and evolution? Because it shows what science without God will accomplish. It brings us men in the women’s bathroom. It brings us gender confusion. It brings 51… 63… no 71 genders! It brings us preschoolers who “want a gender reassignment”! Preschoolers! Science without God allows free reign to the fallen human nature, with broken promises, broken families, broken hearts and broken lives. Children are raised without mothers, or fathers. Sex slavery is rampant. Homosexuality is called normal. Society is in chaos.

Science without God brings tens of thousands of people getting gender reassignment, and then finding that what they really needed was a spiritual change, not a physical one. And of course, once you have a major surgery such as this, there is not really any “going back”. The effects of the mutilating surgery, and the months or years of hormone manipulation are usually irreversible. God did not make a mistake, the patient did and the surgeon did. God’s answer was sure and true all along. God’s design is marriage with two loving partners, and children born into a stable loving home.

Since adopting the humanistic and atheistic worldview we have seen the rapid devolution of social constructs in Europe, Great Britain, and now America. This is viewed with glee by self proclaimed “progressives” who are not really looking forward to actual progress. In reality they seek to overthrow the progress of the last 200 years and return to failed political and social ideas such as socialism and humanism. They seek to be free of God and “all those rules in the Bible.”

We now live in a world characterized by confusion. People are confused about their purpose, their origins, their genders, and much more. People have attempted to assimilate themselves into the so-called “scientific” mindset exemplified by popular series like Star Trek, Star Wars, and The Big Bang. But instead of finding meaning, they have found hopelessness. Instead of finding freedom, they have been increasingly bound by drugs, alcohol, and food addictions.

The Bible was the foundation for the origin of science during the Enlightenment. The Bible should still be the foundation for meaningful scientific advancement. Yes, Genesis Chapter 1 verse 27 is the very foundation for scientific study. It tells us 2 critical facts upon which all our science must originate. God created… and Male and female he created them.
So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

Science without God… Heaven help us.

 

(For similar topics, see “What About Public Education” and “Antithetical”)