Apocalypticism was a worldview that arose during the 6th century BC, when Israel was under Syrian domination. It involved the belief that the present era, which was ruled by evil, would soon give way to a new age here on Earth in which God would restore justice and all evil-doers would be punished. The authors of Daniel and Ezekiel were apocalyptists — so was John of Patmos, the author of Revelation.
And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. As a kid, it never occurred to me that Solomon and Daniel had drastically different views about the afterlife. Christian theology, as it has developed over the centuries, has functioned like a narrative gloss, smoothing the irregular collection of biblical literature into a cohesive story written by a single, divine author. As time went on, Satan, Lucifer and Beelzebub were consolidated into a single entity, the personification of all evil.
Likewise sheol, Gehenna, hades and tartarus came to be understood as physical representations of the darkest place in the universe. The various depictions of hell over the centuries tend to mirror the earthly landscape of their age. Torture entered the conception of hell in the second century, when Christians were subjected to sadistic public spectacles. Roman interrogation methods included red-hot metal rods, whips and the rack. Lower hell is depicted as a walled city with towers, ramparts, bridges and moats; fallen angels guard the citadel like knights.
Today, biblical literalists believe hell exists outside of time and space, in some kind of spiritual fifth dimension. The buildings were connected by subterranean tunnels, so it was possible to spend months, particularly in the winter, going from class to the dining hall to the dorms, without ever stepping outside. We spent our free time quizzing one another on Greek homework and debating predestination over soft-serve ice cream at the Student Centre.
- Blood of Kings.
- Clinical Research Informatics (Health Informatics)!
- Solomons Decision.
- Theological Themes of the Old Testament;
- JESUS CHRIST AND THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
Ideologically, Moody is a peculiar place. Despite the atmosphere of serious scholarship, the institute is theologically conservative, meaning that we studied scripture not as a historic artefact, but as the word of God. Most of the professors thought the world was created in six days. Nearly all of them believed in a literal hell. One of the most invidious tasks of the conservative theologian is to explain how a loving God can allow people to suffer for all of eternity. God is omnipotent and Paul claims it is his divine will that all people should be saved — yet hell exists. He loves all humans — in fact, he loves them so much that he gave them free will, so that they could choose to refuse salvation.
In this way, people essentially condemned themselves to hell. What bothered me was the numbers. In freshman year, every student was required to take a seminar called Christian Missions. During its first week, we watched a video that claimed there were currently 2. I tried to feel out other students to see if anyone else was having similar thoughts, but it was a dangerous subject.
Our communal language was so rigid and coded that there was very little vocabulary with which to express doubt. A few students gave me knowing smiles and little shoulder squeezes, as though I was in the midst of some revelatory spiritual experience that would lead me to the mission field. On Friday nights, I went down to Michigan Avenue with a dozen other students to do street evangelism. Instead, he memorised Luther and Zwingli and made vivid chalk drawings illustrating the plan of salvation, all of which made him pretty popular on campus.
The rest of us handed out tracts to tourists and business people. We usually drew a small crowd — mostly men who were waiting for their wives to finish shopping and seemed to view us as a zany sideshow. These terms were the water we swam in, but out on the street, against the softly lit backdrop of window displays, they sounded ancient and fierce. I knew how ridiculous we looked. These people already knew who Jesus was. We were speaking a foreign language. When Zeb gave the call to come forward and find forgiveness in Jesus Christ, our audience glanced at their watches, put their headphones back on, or yawned.
While I was attending Moody, the most controversial church in the Chicago area was Willow Creek Community Church, out in the north-west suburbs. One blustery Sunday morning in February, as I was walking to catch the train to uptown, faced with the prospect of another minute sermon about gratitude or long-suffering, I found myself suddenly veering across the campus to get on the Willow Creek bus. Willow Creek was different. The Worship Centre seated 7, people, but it was sleek and spare, more convention hall than cathedral.
Hybels preached in a simple Oxford shirt, and his charisma was muted, reminiscent of the gentle authority assumed by dentists and family physicians. The sermon was based in scripture. At first, it just seemed like the traditional gospel set to a brighter tempo. Our primary fault was not our sinful nature, but our tendency to think too little of ourselves.
I never once heard a reference to hell. The goal was to work out why these people were turned off by the gospel, and then to create a worship service that responded to their perceived needs. Essentially, this is consumer-based management. Earlier we examined the weaknesses of the theory of evolution as an explanation for the bewildering complexity of the forms of life we see around us.
Adding up the ages of the biblical patriarchs yields a date of about 6, years ago for the first human parents, Adam and Eve, formed by God at the end of six days of creation. What, then, are we to make of scientists determining the universe and our planet to be billions of years old? While there may be flaws in dating methods, consider that people often make wrong assumptions about what the Bible says. Bear in mind that God does not usually explain all there is to know about a subject in one place in the Bible.
Even the biblical writers He inspired did not always fully understand what they recorded compare Daniel Daniel 8 And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? And He often fills in more details in other passages. Consider, for example, that Genesis Genesis In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
He was in the beginning with God. Here the Bible reveals that, before the creation of the heavens and the earth described in Genesis 1, the divine Word the One who became Jesus, verse 14 was with God, and God made everything through Him. Similarly, Genesis Genesis And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters.
Though not mentioned in Genesis, God elsewhere explains that angels were present at the creation of the earth. Who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted with joy? Again, nothing of this angelic story is described in Genesis. How you are cut down to the ground, you who weakened the nations! Here God explains that Lucifer had a throne, representing a position of leadership and authority.
Where was this place where Lucifer had his throne? The Bible explains that Satan retains his authority over this planet. It is no accident that in Genesis 3, shortly after God created Adam and Eve, Satan appeared on the scene as the serpent in the garden. The earth was—and still is—his domain. We still can not determine what direction light will go when it hits a prism based on identical condition each time the light hits the dispersion can not be pre determined.
If science could calculations prove all outcomes then many of our scientists would be successful wealthy professional gamblers. Well done. Agreed that specified complex information is always the result of intelligence without exception. Within the context of English every reply here is specified complex. Likewise within the context of life every protein and enzyme is specified complex. In order to disprove this well established well documented fact, the naturalist has to PROVE that nature is capable of reproducing specified complex information absent of intelligence with an example we know the origins of.
After a million tries with 0 success it turns into worldview bias rather than truth seeking. The Evolution 2. His Easter bunny is correct. Belief, not proof. To which you are entirely welcome. It is an amalgamation of amino acids, which have evolved over billions of years. You are wrong and need to consult a basic biology book.
What about the creation of the metals in stars? All stars of a given mass evolve and create metals in the same way and with increasing complexity giving rise to all the elements on the periodic table. There is no known code for this yet it happens uniformly in an inevitable cascade. Similarly there is a similar inevitability from interactions between the lithosphere, hydrosphere and geosphere where the cascade path of least resistance leads inevitably toward life. That it took microbial organisms at least 2.
I can see how those that want to believe in a creator, have a limited education or do not understand the principles of evolutionary biology may be taken in by your argument but in reality it is a simple straw man argument and proves nothing. I am entirely enthusiastic about the possibility of someone solving this problem. But to date, nobody has solve the design problem in biology. If someone can solve the Evolution 2. Yes matter can not be destroyed but who said the big Bang was the the start of creation.
I ask you also how did matter start. Was it just here? Can water be destroyed or is it converted? If wood is burned it turns to ash. What matter can be destroyed? This is a question not a statement. Now, essential motion is incompatible with eternity, and matter and essential stability are two mutually exclusive categories that cannot be fused in a single locus. Whatever is stable and immutable in its essence cannot accept movement and change within that essence. They did not suddenly accidentally show up. They did not evolve into position.
The point is that Easter eggs were not the result of a cosmic accident… but deliberately placed by an intelligent force. You can call that entity anything you want. You have taken advantage of the fact that people dismiss the Easter Bunny as ridiculous which directs attention away from the fact that you still have not explained how the eggs got there….. Perry posits that it was not accidental…. The DNA has evolved over billions of years. It simply looks like an eagle to us, because we want it to.
How do you, who believe that matter is accompanied by its antithesis, justify the eternity of matter? Just let me tell you that you Intelligent Design is just a disguise of the same old imagination named creationism. Stop pretending, it is NOT a fact, and you know it. Stop faking, most of the people knows the truth and want to be enlightened by real facts, still few, but only science has given them. First let me complement you on your argument. Let me explain:. Evolution is the random creation of useful biological structures which are sorted by natural selection.
If the DNA can preserve itself, it is passed to the next generation. Therefore, the origin of biological information is the same as cause of evolution. Lie on your back and look up. Do you see any shapes in the clouds? Can you name them? Unless you believe that God is talking to you through the clouds at which point I will walk away from this discussion , then you have just witnessed randomly generated information. For years before modern navigation, sailors used the stars to find their way around the world. Again, those of you who think that God engineered messages into the stars for you should stop reading now.
If you take it as given that the stars are random, then they are an example of non-designed information. This would suggest that you do not need an intelligent typist. You only need a reader that is primed to interpret information and able to do something with it. A cloud is a cloud, an electron is an electron, sunlight is photons, a snowflake is a snowflake.
None of these things symbolically represents anything other than itself. Three Guanines are not Glycine, they are instructions to make Glycine. Clouds are not built from instructions. They are built from chaos. It is impossible to predict what cloud will appear next. It is possible to predict what a creature will look like, given sufficient knowledge of its DNA.
You misunderstand. I am not using clouds to model creatures, I am using them to model DNA. You say:. The point is that clouds are a randomly generated form of information. The cloud is in fact created from chaos and water droplets as you say and humans can interpret them as shapes that do not have to do with the medium. The same is true of the stars which move in predictable and navigationally informative patterns. In other words, coded information does not have to come from a mind. None of these things can be properly labeled as communication systems.
No offense meant. The idea of Information Entropy and any appeal to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is inherently flawed. These things fuel all the processes of both our cellular and sexual reproduction. We constantly expose ourselves to new information when we eat steak. Looking at the universe as a whole, entropy goes up, information is lost, etc. There is no contradiction that implies anything further.
This is classically illustrated by thinking of a person who is trapped in an entirely in a black and white room. As they grow older, they become an expert in the field of color, even though they have never seen it. One day, though, someone tosses an apple into the room, and suddenly their understanding of color transcends anything they had previously known. In this lies qualia. There is no eveidence that any proton, neutron, electron, or any known particle or substance can produce qualia. From this we deduce merely that there is another substance beyond what we traditionally think of as the material world.
I have recently come to the conclusion that, by and large, God intentionally does not reveal himself in scientifically verifiable means. Instead, God operates on a personal level. If God truly desires a relationship with us, he would not reveal himself in a bland and dispassionate manner. For example, I have had a very clear and distinct vision from God several years back, for which I thank God and consider myself incredibly blessed. It is this vision which has brought me here, even, as in it I received my purpose in directly combating the New Atheism and baseless moral structure that now plagues our society.
But it is not scientifically verifiable. But if I earn their trust and show them that I have something real and good, then I will be able to minister to their needs. What we need on offense is good philosophy to expose the poor philosophy inherent in so many modern ideas. I was very, very grateful to have found this book, and the circumstances surrounding that are rather extraordinary, as well.
As I picked it up just yesterday, I discovered that the way had already been prepared in terms of discovering the roots of these modern ideas, and as I read, I could see my own ideas which I had been thinking on for several months — if not years — suddenly unfolding in completion before me. So anyhow, I highly recommend you pick it up. In it, I think you will find the true battleground where we must fight our spiritual battle against modern ideas.
I agree with a lot of what you said except your whole spiel on understanding. To see a color is not to understand it, it is to experience it. Experience does not necessarily equate to knowledge. A sensation or experience is only understood through mutual experiences, not knowledge. For instance, someone who has never felt pain, will not be able to share in a the mutual experience when the idea is expressed, instead he will always have an abstract idea of it.
So I would have to disagree that it is redundant. Next you said that as far as we are aware there is no eveidence that any proton, neutron, electron, or any known particle or substance can produce qualia. I find this a little confusing because qualia originates from your brain, and your brain is made of atoms.
So while an atom independently may not be able to cause qualia, it definitely is responsible indirectly for it. Anyhow, I think you misunderstand me when I say the person who sees an apple understands color on a deeper level. But I hold that atoms cannot produce qualia. Yes, they are responsible for producing the signal that ultimately gets translated into qualia, but qualia transcend physical existence. Computers store information and churn out responses regularly. Hi blind sight I just wonder why does man want to recreate.
Why do most men or women desire having child. If some people do not believe in afterlife why create life knowing I will have will be gone again forever. Why love someone only to be hurt when you lose them. Ultimately why would you desire to continue living, working, struggling, enjoying what for? I say after life because some people believe there is life after death but may not accept God as the reason What is sciences answer to emotion.
We know be bad can lead to self destruction and good can lead to longevity and peace. Why do most prefer the later. Can you count all the stars or all the sand on the earth. You call it chaos because it can not be calculated by man. What else do assume is chaos because we can not pre determine the outcome. Some things will forever be beyond us while we are here on earth.
Would you show the world how to time travel if you ever discovered a way to do it? Looks like the first two lines there were quoting you, Perry. Check the last comment up the thread. Just got correct you there, Evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense when they had to modify it is random mutation followed by natural selection.
However a replicating replicator DNA has to be in existence before it can mutate and be selected for or against. Evolution has nothing to say about the billions of codons already existent in the first simple cell if such a simple cell existed. Read Mr. I believe I discovered he believes as I do, God uses the evolutionary process in creation. Face it, we may never really know our origins. Yes you are right Dave and intelligent as we humans may seem we are not the most intelligent. We live in a dimension created for us with laws and human limitations, much like a creation we have not been able to built till now.more info
The World Before Man: The Biblical Explanation
Which serves our causes but does in some manner harm to us too. Example: We have been so far been able to develop a new world within our world and that is the Cyber World, right!? Anything and everything in this world is created by us too. Do you think that anything which is created in the realm of the Cyber world could possibly think or understand its creator? A creation cannot understand its creator unless or untill the creator wishes.
Now God creator has created us humans for some sort of exam. Religion it seems is the only guideline that makes sense. Since God the creator, Imagine yourself as a creator of a world and with set rules and laws, predictions, timelines etc etc…. It is the destructive nature of man which comes from greed and impatience that can never allow the human race to live in peace. What is nature. A creator almost never wants its creation to kill itself or to take over the creator. A scientist if not working to kill its specimen will not want any such occrance to occur.
Why would any loving creator do that. Is God a loving creator or not? God is a loving creator and that he has mentioned in the Quran more so often. It is the choice that makes the difference. Choice comes from within and not from any outer source. There is no such thing as destiny unless you want it that way.
Crusades were fought by Muslims for the very peace that they had in their world and they wanted the same for the people under barbaric and currupt rulership. Leaving Islam or Religion aside, God has always sent us messages, for those who want to listen to them or want to know the truth and the whole truth.
For those who consider that life as we know it is everything, and cannot comprehend the existence of God or a Loving Creator can always continue to live as they wish. The only problem in that is they will live a hard harsh life with no rules and no boundaries much like the apemen were living in the past when they didnt believe in anything. Remember that time?! Is it not true that Apemen as we know them or the early people were Athiests and didnt know how to light fire!?
We as humans will not evolve and have five hands with 10 fingers. We as living beings have been given the gift of adapting to our surroundings. If this code was not written we would not be able to survive in this world. Human out of all beings on this earth is the most intelligent so much so that it has been said the universe has been created for us…The question is will we be able to live long enough to see the corners of it.
God has created perfection, Humans have not been able to do it. So are you gonna side with the Devil and curse the creator or accept and respect HIM your god your creator. Judgment day!! As soon as he realises its time, he will pull the plug.. Life is a gift…. There never were any apemen. The whole idea of apemen is atheistic. As far as cave men there are people who live in caves today. Some of the Neanderthals who had bigger brains than we do, made super glue , flutes, planted flowers on the graves of their dead, cared for their sick and held religious services lived in caves.
These are well known facts but to explain away God they are portrayed as more animal than human. They were as human as you are and you in fact may be one of their descendants as I may be as well. History teaches us the oldest people we have records of worshiped one God, the creator of heaven and earth, they were not atheists. Pantheism and the animism of people such as the Arabs with their jins etc.
The whole concept of apemen has no basis in fact and neither does your assertion the ancients were atheists. While your note about the Piltdown man is accurate, you have ignored a monument of scientific information that address pre-human bipedal primates. Modern humans are very recent. Further, the earlier primates were clearly non-human i. Fazale Rana.
Richmond, B. No matter what the evidence those that deny God must bend it to their view. I would find the whole story hysterically funny as well as absurd save so many will be lost over it. Go to the Field Museum, P. Barnum would blush at the Lucy doll with her absolutely human figure,hands feet, eyes, nose etc.
The people who made the one in St. Louis went so far as to add human genitalia to fool children into believing this side show freak display you call science is true.
Tell me Jim, since you think you are a scientist how any dating beyond what can be cross checked with human historical record can be done without at least 3 assumptions that are pulled straight from the air? Otherwise you are telling me your faith , not science. I already have a faith. I predict you will ignore the question and tell me all scientist believe this and that makes it true. They do not all believe it Jim and even if it was true you could never be sure, you only have the faith, the belief.
Even from an evolutionary view to believe monkeys to turn to man in 40ka is absurd. Neanderthals were just as human as you are and you may in fact be one. They made superglue, made complex mathematical calculations, held religious services , buried their dead and played music as they put flowers on the graves of those they cared for and could not be saved. When the evolutionists decided the Aborigines were at least 60ka old he was forced to change his interpretation of the Bible. Truth never changes,God never changes. I doubt they ever will but the assumption that would prove random events turned monkeys into men is childishly absurd.
Have you ever stopped and realized that those who believe in evolution believe in it and then go trying to find evidence to support it? Evolution has nothing to do with science, it is all about God. Why would the existence of a bi-pedal ape convince anyone DNA rewrote its own order to turn a creature that is still vastly different from a human being into one? It seems you should be looking for a monkey who can read ,write and play chess, that Jim would impress me.
Not a lot of grant money in finding ape ancestors. In the end all we have ever found are people and apes, never an ape-man and we never will. God made apes and He made us. All creatures adapt to their environments but apes will always be apes and people will always be people. Jim I will give you the benefit of being ignorant of any information nor Ross approved but to claim that all biologist agree that Neanderthals were not human is false. To say you can dig up a bone and decide it has a spirit is absurd.
These people made music, they were human beings. Ross is the best friend an atheist ever had. Recent research publications indicate that some Neanderthals may have had red-hair, fair complexions, and the capacity for speech and language. Carles Lalueza-Fox et al. Wall and Sung K. The authors of the article reevaluated work done on sequencing of the Neanderthal genome last year published in the journals Nature and Science and suggest that contamination with modern human DNA may have been a factor for the work published in Nature.
Jim most scientist who get published preach atheistic evolution so all their conclusions are tainted by those assumptions. If you start out believing God spoke the truth to us the evidence makes perfect sense It is pure assumption that if a particular sample of DNA does not match another that they could not interbreed. No one would ever mistake Neanderthal DNA with a monkeys. Bower, B. Trinkus, E. Knopf, New York, p. Lubenow, M. The problem with trying to claim historical science and operational hold the same weight is you have to ignore the axioms.
Since modern science is controlled by overwhelmingly atheistic people that is the axiom, no God. They held on to the flood until when the con-man lawyer Charles Lyell eventually convinced them the Mosaic account was a myth. That is why the idea of Punctuated Equilibrium became so popular, gradualism was based on a well known lie.
Ross thinks if he compromises and agrees with He knows that a recent study proved that the more children attend Sunday School and Church the less likely they are to remain in church after graduation and he knows why that is. The reason they gave was overwhelming. The church is too faced, it tells them the Bible is true where it talks of morality and salvation and to just ignore what it says about history and science. They reason a liar is a liar, if the first verse is a lie why read the second? But this knowledge means nothing to him because he has decided truth for himself. In the end science is beside the point, we all have to die and we all face our maker Jesus Christ.
He said the flood was a real event, that humans and animals were created the same day and how anyone can disagree with God , and that is who Jesus is, and can still convince themselves He will save their souls is beyond me. The beginning means the beginning or we have no reason to believe. Correcting God seems unwise, if a person truly believes He exists. Meanwhile I ask you to refrain from posting. I will make you a deal Perry, I will send you a copy of Dr.
That seems equitible and fair to me. Refuting compromise is the best creationist argument against your view and according to you Snokes is for yours. Well, that was quite a disjointed ramble and a lot of personal accusations. You should complement, rather than condemn, scientists for being honest for rejecting this hoax. This fraud prevented research on other pre-human bipedals e. Science does self-correct itself. Please do the same — and — get on with new scientific discoveries. Neanderthals are NOT Human.
The most recent DNA analysis indicates, not only that they were not human, but that Neanderthals did not contribute to the human genome. The Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA examined to date is distinctly different from that of humans… No mitochondrial DNA sequences from Neanderthals have been encountered in modern humans. Show me one!? In Summary — Tree Rings go back to years Bristlecone Pine while others go back over 12, years.
Ancient Coral reefs that we find on land around the world go back over , years. Light takes time to travel. Proxima Centauri is 4. In summary, you claim that most if not all scientific findings are all invalid since most scientists are atheists. Also, that the reason for children abandoning the Christian faith is because of science.
The World Before Man: The Biblical Explanation | United Church of God
I think we, as Christians, should love science because it shows us the amazing design in the universe — and — gives us clear insight into the character of God Rom 1. I apologize for the ramble. As far as Piltdown Man Harvard Press still used it as evidence in For 43 years a fraud that would not fool a smart 10 year old was accepted and led many to deny Christ. If you are a Christian then why is that not your great concern and why does it not cause you to question evolution in general? Please note the creationists you consider idiots were never fooled by that or the even worse error of Uniformitarianism that took years for the secularists to concede and yet many still refuse to..
Please do some research, Halton Arp is alive and well and researching at this moment.
- The Philosophy of Revelation?
- PASSION- REVISED.
- 1: Natural Theology in This Century: Concepts and Approaches;
- Essential Korean: Speak Korean with Confidence! (Korean Phrasebook) (Essential Phrase Bk).
- Love of My Lives.
- Energy, Environment, & Economy.
- A Bright Room Called Day.
Making it up does not impress me. Arp is right , the Big Bang is a joke. Christian theologians argued against it is the 2nd century.
The World Before Man: The Biblical Explanation
The southern apes are just that ,apes! None of them walked upright and Lucy was a knuckle walker with super long digits. The Gibbons are far closer to humans in the way they are designed than southern apes yet since they live today no evolutionists claims they are our ancestor. There are plenty of scientists, secular as well as creationists that interpret Neanderthals as fully human. The fact many disagree means nothing unless you can explain how they could perform complex math , make musical instruments, super glue , have the social structure to bury their dead, perform religious ceremonies etc.
It always amazes me that Christians who compromise the word of God agree with atheists the vast majority of the time and claim those who say that God is the authority and He and Jesus Christ say that scripture is divine are idiots. By that definition being a Christian is an idiot. Joh If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;.
The head scientist on the project wrote the Tara program and NASA sees him as the best geophysicist on earth, as do others. If there was death before sin the Bible is a lie. Show me from the Bible that there could have been thorns and thistles before Adam or be honest with yourself and admit the Bible is not your authority, man is.
Read what Lilly said about equilibrium and then read the R. The majority of the R. E report is referenced from secular sciences records. How is it creationists excel at geology while dismissing great ages as the heathen belief it has always been. If you do not believe in God you must accept great ages, does that not for a second make you pause? Is it a coincidence that those who take God at His word all dismiss great ages and all those who hate God promote them? The atheists would laugh and persecute you and you can see no reason to stand up and claim the Bible as your authority seeing as it is not such.
Read the R. Report, you can download the short version for free. It details a scientific test similar to ur-lead , pot str etc that gives a date of years plus or minus Also Mitochondrial Eve when the figures are adjusted for new discoveries since the report first came out gives a date of years. She has been described as the most-recent common ancestor of all humans on Earth today, with respect to matrilineal descent.
The validity of these assertions, however, is dependent upon two critically important assumptions: 1 that mtDNA is, in fact, derived exclusively from the mother; and 2 that the mutation rates associated with mtDNA have remained constant over time. However, we now know that both of these assumptions are wrong!
Several recent papers, however, have suggested that elements of mtDNA may sometimes be inherited from the father. This hypothesis is based on evidence that mtDNA may undergo recombination. If mtDNA can recombine, irrespective of the mechanism, there are important implications for mtDNA evolution and for phylogenetic studies that use mtDNA Morris and Mightowlers, , , emphasis added. The August issue of the New England Journal of Medicine contained the results of one study, which concluded:.
Very small amounts of paternally inherited mtDNA have been detected by the polymerase chain reaction PCR in mice after several generations of interspecific backcrosses…. We report the case of a year-old man with mitochondrial myopathy due to a novel 2-bp mtDNA deletion…. Ninety percent! And all this time, evolutionists have been selectively shaping our family tree using what was alleged to be only maternal mtDNA!
Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate.
- Why Me? Why Not Me Captain Bobs journey to heaven through surrender.?
- Bible - Wikipedia.
- Philosophy and Christian Theology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
- The Word of Wisdom;
- Old Testament.
- Master Cleanse Basics.
Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6, years old , emphasis added. There is nothing , period, on this earth older than the flood. That is the word of God! That being said you are dead wrong about Bristle comb Pines. The scientist responsible for them cut one down and counted the rings, it was around you can look it up. You are representing an assumption as a fact. I am not so easily brainwashed. An interesting sidebar is the scientist realizing he had killed one of the oldest living things on earth planted some in Arizona to try and make up for it.
You need to do your homework, to present c data as fact without even telling the person it is in fact c data is dishonest, I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are following the atheists without question but you have been warned. If you ever do that again it will be deliberately untrue. A light year is a measurement of distance, not time. The Big Bang has the same problem all cosmologies do, Biblically sound or otherwise. For the temperatures of the background microwave radiation to have equalized would take in excess of billion light years yet the BB claims There are far more scientific arguments against millions or billions of years than for them but please understand, ALL atheists believe in great ages and evolution.
That was true centuries before Christ was born, it was true when He was born, it is true now and will be until He returns. No one is insane enough to believe that the world popped into existence quickly for no apparent reason. Sadly there are few who have the faith to believe in the creative power of God, the power Christ used to heal the sick and raise the dead. Here is a deep thought, if it takes billions of years for God to wait around while the New Heaven and the New Earth create themselves where will we be?
Or do you even believe that million years from now you will be alive in heaven with Jesus? Please take this question seriously, what you believe about the age of the earth does not affect your salvation unless of course it affects your belief in Jesus Christ and His blood redemption of your soul. If He lied , or was just too stupid to know better about the flood and Adam then how can you believe He is God at all?
If I accepted the secularist world view I would be one. Mat And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, Mat And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Joh I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.
This sounds like another late-night ramble. They are easily refutable. I am familiar with the R. The R. I just did a search and nothing new has been published by the R. However, there has been significant challenges to their findings by other scientists. So, you have the Big Bang proven to I am chosing not to address your statements that equate me and everyone else who disagrees with your young earth science as an atheist. It is true, there are unanswered questions, or gaps, in the theory of evolution.
Same can be said for the theory of gravitation. I have to disagree, Jorge. Just a counterpoint I think you missed somehow: 1.
Related THE WORD OF GOD IN THE 21ST CENTURY: The Evolution and Revelation of the God of the Bible
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved