4/4/15

“Abiogenesis is Irrelevant to Evolution” by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=1631

“Abiogenesis is Irrelevant to Evolution”

by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

The Law of Biogenesis tells us that in nature, life comes only from life of its kind (Miller, 2012). Therefore, abiogenesis (i.e., life arising from non-living materials) is impossible, according to the scientific evidence. How then can atheistic theories like Darwinian evolution be considered acceptable? There is a growing trend among evolutionists today to attempt to sidestep the problem of abiogenesis by contending that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, but rather is a theory which starts with life already in existence and explains the origin of all species from that original life form. However, this approach is merely wishful thinking—an effort to avoid the logical import of the Law of Biogenesis.
Historically, evolutionists have recognized that abiogenesis is a fundamental assumption inherent in evolutionary theory, and intuitively must be so. In 1960, British evolutionary physiologist, G.A. Kerkut, listed abiogenesis as the first assumption in a list of non-provable assumptions upon which evolution is founded. “The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred” (Kerkut, 1960, p. 6). Evolutionary theory is an attempt to explain the origin of species through natural means—without supernatural Creation. Logically, unless you concede the existence of God and subscribe to theistic evolution in order to explain the origin of life (a position that has been shown to be unsustainable, cf. Thompson, 2000), abiogenesis must have originally occurred in order to commence the process of Darwinian evolution. Abiogenesis is required by evolution as the starting point.
Further, atheistic evolutionary geologist, Robert Hazen, who received his doctoral degree from Harvard, admitted that he assumes abiogenesis occurred. In his lecture series, Origins of Life, he says, “In this lecture series I make a basic assumption that life emerged by some kind of natural process. I propose that life arose by a sequence of events that are completely consistent with natural laws of chemistry and physics” (2005, emp. added). Again, evolution is an attempt to explain life through natural means, and abiogenesis must go hand-in-hand with such a theory. Hazen further stated that in his assumption of abiogenesis, he is “like most other scientists” (2005). It makes perfect sense for atheistic evolutionists to admit their belief in abiogenesis. Without abiogenesis in place, there is no starting point for atheistic evolution to occur. However, many evolutionists do not want to admit such a belief too loudly, since such a belief has absolutely no scientific evidence to support it. It is a blind faith—a religious dogma.
It is also true that atheists themselves use the term “evolution” as a generalized catchall word encompassing all materialistic origin models, including those dealing with the origin of the cosmos, not just the origin of species. A simple Google search of the keywords, “cosmic evolution,” illustrates that contention. Consider, for example, the title of Harvard University astrophysicist Eric Chaisson’s Web site: “Cosmic Evolution: From Big Bang to Humankind” (2012). Consider also the comments of NASA chief historian, Steven Dick: “Cosmic evolution begins…with the formation of stars and planetary systems, proceeds…to primitive and complex life, and culminates with intelligence, technology and astronomers…contemplating the universe…. This story of the life of the universe, and our place in it, is known as cosmic evolution” (2005). If atheism were true, in this mythical story of how the Universe evolved from nothing to everything, abiogenesis must have occurred somewhere along the way. Thus, abiogenesis is a fundamental, implied phenomenon of evolutionary theory. Creationists are merely using atheistic evolutionists’ terms in the same way they use them.
The truth is, one cannot logically commence a study of Life Science or Biology—studies which are intimately linked with the theory of evolution by the bulk of the scientific community today—without first studying the origin of that life which allegedly evolved from a single-celled organism into the various forms of life on Earth today. Biology and Life Science textbooks today, with almost unanimity, include a discussion of biogenesis, abiogenesis (ironically, discussing the work of Pasteur, Spallanzani, and Redi, who disproved the theory of abiogenesis), and extensive discussions of evolutionary theory. The evolutionists themselves inevitably couple Biology and Life Science with evolution, as though they are one and the same. But a study of life—biology—must have a starting point. So, evolutionists themselves link the problem of abiogenesis to evolution. If the evolutionary community wishes to separate the study of biology from evolution—a position I would strongly recommend—then the evolutionist might be able to put his head in the sand and ignore the abiogenesis problem, but not while the evolutionist couples evolution so intimately with biology.
The reality is that abiogenesis stands alongside evolutionary theory as a fundamental plank of atheism and will remain there. The two are intimately linked and stand or fall together. It is time for the naturalist to forthrightly admit that his religious belief in evolution is based on a blind acceptance of an unscientific pheonomenon.

REFERENCES

Chaisson, Eric (2012), “Cosmic Evolution: From Big Bang to Humankind,” Harvard College Observatory, https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html.
Dick, Steven J. (2005), “Why We Explore: Our Place in the Universe,” NASA,http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/whyweexplore/Why_We_13.html
Hazen, Robert (2005), Origins of Life, audio-taped lecture (Chantilly, VA: The Teaching Company).
Kerkut, George A. (1960), The Implications of Evolution (London: Pergamon).
Miller, Jeff (2012), “The Law of Biogenesis,” Reason & Revelation, 32[1]:2-11, January,http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1018&article=1722.
Thompson, Bert (2000), Creation Compromises (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

"Classic" Responses from Evolutionists by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1443

"Classic" Responses from Evolutionists

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Through the years, evolutionists have been presented with an abundant amount of evidence that points toward the Creation model and away from the evolution model. Nearly every time, however, they have rejected the available facts presented to them, deciding rather to embrace their theory in spite of the facts. Consider a few of the many tenuous responses that evolutionists have given to the evidence presented to them in opposition to the evolutionary geologic timetable.
(1) In an attempt to explain away “human-like footprints” embedded in 250-million-year-old coal veins in Kentucky, Illinois, Missouri, and westward toward the Rocky Mountains, Albert G. Ingalls (the state geologist of Kentucky) could muster only the following explanation.
If man, or even his ape ancestor, or even the ape ancestor’s early mammal ancestor, existed as far back as in the Carboniferous period in any shape, then the whole science of geology is so completely wrong that all geologists will resign their jobs and take up truck driving. Hence, for the present at least, science rejects the attractive explanation that man made these mysterious prints in the mud of the Carboniferous period with his feet (1940, 162:14, emp. added; see also, Wilder-Smith, 1970, p. 300).
Evolutionary scientists still are rejecting the “attractive explanation”—i.e., the obvious fact—that these prints are human footprints.
(2) In attempting to explain away how two trilobites were found fossilized inside of a human sandal print in Antelope Springs, Utah, in 1968, evolutionists have asserted that the print is merely a spall (cracking or chipping) pattern in the rock (see Conrad, 1981, 4:30-33). They do not question the authenticity of the trilobite fossils, yet they reject the interpretation that these trilobites are found inside a human sandal print. One wonders what kind of explanation they have for the stitching that is visible along the edges of the sandal print?
(3) During the summer of 2004, while I was visiting the Natural Bridges National Monument in southeast Utah, I asked one of the staff members at the visitor’s center how scientists explain the presence of an antiquated dinosaur petroglyph at the base of Kachina Bridge. Her response: “They don’t really want to explain it.” Truth be told, if I were an evolutionist, I would not want to explain it either. This piece of evidence blatantly contradicts their timetable. According to the theory of evolution, humans never lived with dinosaurs. But if humans never saw living dinosaurs, how did the Anasazis, who inhabited southeastern Utah long before dinosaur fossils were found in modern times, carve such an accurate picture of a dinosaur onto the side of a rock wall?
If the responses by evolutionists to the mountain of evidence that points toward the Creation model were not so pitiful and potentially soul damaging, they would be somewhat comical. To think that some men and women who call themselves “scientists” actually reject facts of science in order to embrace the evolutionary theory is revolting. May humanity recognize that God has left testimony of His work in Creation all around us (cf. Psalm 19:1; Romans 1:20).
“Know that the Lord, He is God; It is He who has made us, and not we ourselves” (Psalm 100:3).
“Let all the earth fear the Lord; let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him. For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast” (Psalm 33:8-9).
No evolutionists will ever be able to explain away these truths!

REFERENCES

Conrad, Ernest C. (1981), “Tripping Over a Trilobite: A Study of the Meister Tracks,”Creation/Evolution, 4:30-33.
Ingalls, Albert G. (1940), “The Carboniferous Mystery,” Scientific American, 162:14, January.
Wilder-Smith, A.E. (1970), Man’s Origin, Man’s Destiny (Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Publishers).

"The Abundance of Everything" by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=4834

"The Abundance of Everything"

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Q:

 Isn’t America’s wealth an indication that the nation is pleasing to God?

A:

There’s no question that America’s unprecedented affluence and technological superiority have been the direct result of God showering the country with His blessings for over 200 years (Psalm 33:12). However, we must not think even for a moment that He will continue His favor indefinitely if we, as a nation, veer from the principles of Christian morality on which the Republic was founded. One cannot assume that since national existence remains intact and the bulk of the populace continues to enjoy lavish physical comforts that God is pleased or that He has no intention of “pulling the plug.” Indeed, tragically, America would seem to have entered the same phase of national status which God warned would one day characterize Israel of old if they jettisoned God’s commands and decrees from their lives.
Because you did not serve the LORD your God with joy and gladness of heart, for the abundance of everything, therefore you shall serve your enemies, whom the LORD will send against you, in hunger, in thirst, in nakedness, and in need of everything; and He will put a yoke of iron on your neck until He has destroyed you (Deuteronomy 28:47-48, emp. added).
If there was ever an accurate description of America’s condition, it would be that we enjoy “the abundance of everything.” Yet great spiritual poverty has spread like a scourge across the land. The abundance that Americans wallow in everyday should propel them to live godly lives before the great Governor of the Universe. Sadly, however, much of the population is rushing headlong down the precipice of moral depravity, wanton luxury, hedonism, and irreligion. We should fully expect the same outcome (2 Kings 17 and 25). Even as God expressed through the prophet Zechariah:
Thus says the Lord of hosts: “Execute true justice, show mercy and compassion everyone to his brother. Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the alien or the poor. Let none of you plan evil in his heart against his brother.” But they refused to heed, shrugged their shoulders, and stopped their ears so that they could not hear…refusing to hear the law and the words which the Lord of hosts had sent…. Thus great wrath came from the Lord of hosts…. Thus the land became desolate after them, so that no one passed through or returned; for they made the pleasant land desolate (7:8-14, emp. added).
America has most certainly been “the pleasant land.” But she can be made desolate—if God wills.

From Mark Copeland... "THE CHRISTIAN HOME AND FAMILY" The Tragedy Of Divorce


                    "THE CHRISTIAN HOME AND FAMILY"

                         The Tragedy Of Divorce

INTRODUCTION

1. Our previous study listed many potential causes of 
   family conflict that often...
   a. Strain the best of families
   b. Lead many to believe divorce is an easy solution

2. In the Bible, we read that God hates divorce... - Mal 2:13-16
   a. It "covers one's garment with violence"
   b. It is "treacherous"     

[For the past generation, quick and easy "no-fault" divorce has been
available.  We are just now learning of the long-term effects of divorce.
It is not a pretty picture.  Consider what studies have shown on...]

I. THE EFFECTS OF DIVORCE ON CHILDREN

   A. MENTALLY...
      1. Teenagers in single-parent families and in blended families
         are three times more likely to need psychological help within a
         given year. (Peter Hill Recent Advances in Selected Aspects of 
         Adolescent Development Journal of Child Psychology and 
         Psychiatry 1993)
      2. Compared to children from homes disrupted by death, children
         from divorced homes have more psychological problems. (Robert E.
         Emery, Marriage, Divorce and Children's Adjustment Sage 
         Publications, 1988)
      3. The study of children six years after a parental marriage
         breakup revealed that even after all that time, these children
         tended to be lonely, unhappy, anxious and insecure". 
         (Wallerstein, The Long-Term Effects of Divorce on Children - 
         Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent 
         Psychiatry 1991)

   B. SOCIALLY...
      1. Children of divorce, particularly boys, tend to be more
         aggressive toward others than those children whose parents did 
         not divorce. (Emery, Marriage, Divorce and Children's 
         Adjustment, 1988)
      2. Children of divorce are four times more likely to report
         problems with peers and friends than children whose parents have
         kept their marriages intact. (Tysse, Burnett, Moral Dilemmas of 
         Early Adolescents of Divorced and Intact Families. Journal of
         Early Adolescence 1993)
      3. Seventy percent of long-term prison inmates grew up in broken
         homes. (Horn, Bush, Fathers, Marriage and Welfare Reform)

   C. ACADEMICALLY...
      1. Studies in the early 1980s showed that children in repeat
         divorces earned lower grades and their peers rated them as less
         pleasant to be around. (Andrew J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, 
         Remarriage Harvard University Press 1981)
      2. Children of divorced parents are roughly two times more likely
         to drop out of high school than their peers who benefit from 
         living with parents who did not divorce. (McLanahan, Sandefur, 
         Growing Up With a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps 
         - Harvard University Press 1994)

   D. PHYSICALLY...
      1. Children living with both biological parents are 20 to 35
         percent more physically healthy than children from broken homes.
         (Dawson, Family Structure and Children's Health and Well-being 
         - Journal of Marriage and the Family)
      2. Following divorce, children are fifty percent more likely to
         develop health problems than two parent families. (Angel, 
         Worobey, Single Motherhood and Children's Health)
      3. Children of divorce are at a greater risk to experience
         injury, asthma, headaches and speech defects than children whose
         parents have remained married. (Dawson, Family Structure and 
         Children's Health and Well Being - National Health Interview
         Survey on Child Health, Journal of Marriage and the Family)
      4. Most victims of child molestation come from single-parent
         households or are the children of drug ring members. (Los 
         Angeles Times 16 September 1985 The Garbage Generation)
      5. A child in a female-headed home is 10 times more likely to be
         beaten or murdered. (The Legal Beagle, July 1984, from The 
         Garbage Generation)
      6. People who come from broken homes are almost twice as likely
         to attempt suicide than those who do not come from broken homes.
         (Velez-Cohen, Suicidal Behavior and Ideation in a Community 
         Sample of Children Journal of the American Academy of Child and
         Adolescent Psychiatry 1988)

   E. SPIRITUALLY...
      1. Religious worship, which has been linked to better health,
         longer marriages, and better family life, drops after the 
         parents divorce.  (Patrick Fagan, Ph.D. and Robert Rector, The
         Effects Of Divorce In America, June 2000)
      2. Many young people from divorced families "experience a loss of
         trust that affects their belief in God - making them overall 
         much less religious than their peers from intact families," 
         (Elizabeth Marquardt of the Institute for American Values and
         Professor Norval Glenn of the University of Texas, Between Two
         Worlds: The Inner Lives of Children of Divorce)
      3. Children of divorce are also "much less likely to say their
         mother and father taught them how to pray and prayed with them -
         and are much more likely to say they doubt the sincerity of 
         their parents' religious beliefs, do not share their parents'
         values, and to say there are things their parents have done that
         they find hard to forgive." (ibid.)

[There is also the "sleeper effect", where adult children have a
resurgence of anxiety, fear, guilt, and anger they had suppressed for
many years.  Truly, divorce is "treacherous"!  But not just for children...]

II. EFFECTS OF DIVORCE ON SPOUSES

   A. MENTALLY...
      1. Men and women both suffer a decline in mental health following
         divorce, but researchers have found that women are more greatly
         affected. Some of the mental health indicators affected by 
         divorce include depression, hostility, self-acceptance, personal
         growth and positive relations with others. (Nadine F. Marks and
         James D. Lambert, "Marital Status Continuity and Change among 
         Young and Midlife Adults: Longitudinal Effects on Psychological
         Well-being," Journal of Family Issues 19, 1998)
      2. A recent study found those who were unhappy but stay married
         were more likely to be happy five years later than those who 
         divorced. (Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher, The Case for 
         Marriage (New York: Doubleday, 2000)

   B. PHYSICALLY...
      1. Life expectancies for divorced men and women are significantly
         lower than for married people (who have the longest life 
         expectancies) (Robert Coombs, "Marital Status and Personal Well-
         Being: A Literature Review," 1991)
      2. The health consequences of divorce are so severe that a Yale
         researcher concluded that "being divorced and a nonsmoker is 
         [only] slightly less dangerous than smoking a pack a day and 
         staying married." (Harold J. Morowitz, "Hiding in the Hammond 
         Report," 1975)
      3. After a diagnosis of cancer, married people are most likely to
         recover, while the divorced are least likely to recover, 
         indicating that the emotional trauma of divorce has a long-term 
         impact on the physical health of the body. (James S. Goodwin,
         William C. Hunt, Charles R. Key and Jonathan M. Sarmet, "The 
         Effect of Marital Status on Stage, Treatment, and Survival of 
         Cancer Patients," Journal of the American Medical Association 
         258, 1987)

   C. FINANCIALLY...
      1. Families with children that were not poor before the divorce
         see their income drop as much as 50 percent. Almost 50 percent 
         of the parents with children that are going through a divorce 
         move into poverty after the divorce.  (Patrick Fagan, Ph.D. and
         Robert Rector, The Effects Of Divorce In America, June 2000)
      2. Studies show that women experiencing divorce face roughly a 30
         percent decline in the standard of living they enjoyed while 
         married and men show a 10 percent decline. The consistency of 
         this finding caused one researcher to conclude: "However 
         'prepared' for marital disruption women increasingly may be, 
         they are not prepared in ways sufficient to cushion the economic
          cost." (Pamela J. Smock, "The Economic Costs of Marital 
         Disruption for Young Women over the Past Two Decades." 
         Demography 30, 1993)

   D. SPIRITUALLY...
      1. Jesus taught there is only one ground for divorce and
         remarriage:  fornication - Mt 19:9
      2. That divorce and remarriage for any other reason results in
         adultery - Mt 19:9
      3. Those who divorce their spouses for a reason other than
         fornication, cause them to commit adultery! - Mt 5:32
         a. Either by putting them in a situation where they are likely
            to commit fornication
         b. Or by putting them in a situation where they might enter an
            unscriptural marriage
      4. Those who commit fornication or adultery as a result of
         unlawful divorce or remarriage will not inherit the kingdom of 
         heaven, unless they repent! - 1Co 6:9-11; Ga 5:19-21; He 13:4

CONCLUSION

1. My purpose is not to pile guilt on those who are divorced...
   a. They know first-hand the terrible consequences of divorce on
      their families and themselves
   b. They need our understanding and help to make the best of a
      difficult situation

2. My prayer is this lesson will serve as a cautionary tale...
   a. That divorce is a treacherous and violent act for all those involved
   b. We need to teach our children what God has spoken and society is
      still learning about divorce

May God help those suffering from the tragedy of divorce, and may God
help us if we do not warn our families and our society of the terrible
consequences of divorce...!


Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

eXTReMe Tracker 

From Gary... A Stairway to....

http://www.fuzzysnail.com/led-zeppelin-tribute/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MG6bgdQn684

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9TGj2jrJk8


My good friend and former neighbor, Jay Whalen, posted a tribute to Stairway To Heaven on Facebook today and it absolutely made my day!!!  In addition to the tribute version, I also put an orchestral version and the original into today's post. By all means, please do listen to all three, but if you are short on time, then just listen and watch the first one (the tribute version). As you might have already guessed, I consider this the greatest rock and roll song to date and frankly, I doubt if one will ever come along to top it. Why? Because it has the unbeatable combination of meaningful words, great guitar playing and a rhythmic progression that is enthralling!!! Now, in watching the tribute, I noticed Robert Plant's eyes tearing up and it seems to me that he was probably thinking of his long dead friend, John Bonham. This, coupled with the intense emotion of the song itself, was mesmerizing!!! And I couldn't help but think of the shortest verse in the New Testament, John 11:35  (Jesus wept).  For the sake of context, I have included much of the surrounding verses as well...

John, Chapter 11 (WEB)
  1 Now a certain man was sick, Lazarus from Bethany, of the village of Mary and her sister, Martha.  2 It was that Mary who had anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother, Lazarus, was sick.  3 The sisters therefore sent to him, saying, “Lord, behold, he for whom you have great affection is sick.”  4 But when Jesus heard it, he said, “This sickness is not to death, but for the glory of God, that God’s Son may be glorified by it.”   5 Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus.  6 When therefore he heard that he was sick, he stayed two days in the place where he was. 7 Then after this he said to the disciples, “Let’s go into Judea again.” 

  8  The disciples told him, “Rabbi, the Jews were just trying to stone you, and are you going there again?” 

  9  Jesus answered, “Aren’t there twelve hours of daylight? If a man walks in the day, he doesn’t stumble, because he sees the light of this world.   10  But if a man walks in the night, he stumbles, because the light isn’t in him.”   11 He said these things, and after that, he said to them, “Our friend, Lazarus, has fallen asleep, but I am going so that I may awake him out of sleep.” 

  12  The disciples therefore said, “Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover.” 

  13  Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought that he spoke of taking rest in sleep.  14 So Jesus said to them plainly then,“Lazarus is dead.   15  I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, so that you may believe. Nevertheless, let’s go to him.” 

  16  Thomas therefore, who is called Didymus, said to his fellow disciples, “Let’s go also, that we may die with him.” 

  17  So when Jesus came, he found that he had been in the tomb four days already.  18 Now Bethany was near Jerusalem, about fifteen stadia away.  19 Many of the Jews had joined the women around Martha and Mary, to console them concerning their brother.  20 Then when Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went and met him, but Mary stayed in the house.  21 Therefore Martha said to Jesus, “Lord, if you would have been here, my brother wouldn’t have died.  22 Even now I know that, whatever you ask of God, God will give you.” 23 Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” 

  24  Martha said to him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.” 

  25  Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will still live, even if he dies.   26  Whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?” 

  27  She said to him, “Yes, Lord. I have come to believe that you are the Christ, God’s Son, he who comes into the world.” 

  28  When she had said this, she went away, and called Mary, her sister, secretly, saying, “The Teacher is here, and is calling you.” 

  29  When she heard this, she arose quickly, and went to him.  30 Now Jesus had not yet come into the village, but was in the place where Martha met him.  31 Then the Jews who were with her in the house, and were consoling her, when they saw Mary, that she rose up quickly and went out, followed her, saying, “She is going to the tomb to weep there.”  32 Therefore when Mary came to where Jesus was, and saw him, she fell down at his feet, saying to him, “Lord, if you would have been here, my brother wouldn’t have died.” 

  33  When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews weeping who came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled,  34 and said, “Where have you laid him?” 

They told him, “Lord, come and see.” 

  35  Jesus wept. 

  36  The Jews therefore said, “See how much affection he had for him!”  37 Some of them said, “Couldn’t this man, who opened the eyes of him who was blind, have also kept this man from dying?” 

  38  Jesus therefore, again groaning in himself, came to the tomb. Now it was a cave, and a stone lay against it.  39 Jesus said, “Take away the stone.” 

Martha, the sister of him who was dead, said to him, “Lord, by this time there is a stench, for he has been dead four days.” 

  40  Jesus said to her, “Didn’t I tell you that if you believed, you would see God’s glory?” 

  41  So they took away the stone from the place where the dead man was lying. Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, “Father, I thank you that you listened to me.   42  I know that you always listen to me, but because of the multitude that stands around I said this, that they may believe that you sent me.”   43 When he had said this, he cried with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out!” 

  44  He who was dead came out, bound hand and foot with wrappings, and his face was wrapped around with a cloth. 

Jesus said to them, “Free him, and let him go.” 

Tears are nothing less than the physical manifestation of a heart filled with sorrow. It seems obvious that the tribute reveals Plant's heart and the Scripture Jesus'. One reveals the memory of a lost friend and the other a friend to be found again.  I wonder, of the two, which one means the most to you???

PS.
I like all three videos, but I must admit that nothing can top the original version!!! Just saying...