1/28/16

The Skeptic’s Faulty Assumption by Kyle Butt, M.Div.



http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=1173

The Skeptic’s Faulty Assumption

by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

One of the skeptic’s favorite tactics in an attempt to discredit the God of the Bible is to insist that God is a cruel, heartless, vengeful God Who capriciously sends floods or armies through the land destroying innocent men, women, and children. Skeptics especially like to focus on the children. How could a loving God send Saul and his army to destroy all the Amalekites, including the “infant and nursing child?” Steve Wells claims that “God just wanted to see some more innocent people killed” (2001). Or, how could a loving God send a flood to destroy all the people of the Earth, including the innocent babies? The argument goes something like this: (1) the God of the Bible is supposed to be good and loving; (2) the God of the Bible kills innocent children; (3) therefore the God of the Bible cannot be good and loving.
At first glance, this logic seems to make sense. When examined more closely, however, there lies within this syllogism a faulty assumption. The faulty assumption built into this line of reasoning is that death is always, in every circumstance, an evil thing. With the assumption built in, the second premise should read like this: The God of the Bible kills innocent children, and death of anyone innocent is always a bad thing. The assumption that death, especially the death of innocent children, is always bad, stems from the skeptic’s adherence to pure naturalism. If this physical life and material world are all that exist, then to take an innocent person out of this physical world is inherently evil, according to the skeptic.
Yet, the same Bible that tells about a God Who takes the physical lives of innocent children also informs the reader that this physical world is not all there is to existence. In fact, the Bible explains that every person has a soul that will live forever, long after physical life on this Earth is over (Matthew 25:46; see also Thompson, 2001). The Bible consistently stresses the fact that the immortal soul of each individual is of much more value than that individual’s physical life on this Earth. Jesus Christ said: “For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?” (Matthew 16:26).
Although the skeptic might object, and claim that an answer from the Bible is not acceptable, such an objection falls flat for one primary reason—the skeptic used the Bible to formulate his argument. Where is it written that God is love? The answer: in the Bible in such passages as 1 John 4:8. Where do we learn that the Lord did, indeed, kill or order the deaths of babies? Once again, that information comes directly from the Bible. Where, then, should we look for an answer to this alleged discrepancy? The answer should be the Bible. If the alleged problem is formulated from biblical testimony, then the Bible should be given the opportunity to explain itself. As long as the skeptic uses the Bible to formulate the problem, we certainly can use the Bible to solve the problem. The biblical solution to the alleged problem in this instance is that every person has an immortal soul that is of inestimable value.
With the value of the soul in mind, let us examine several verses that prove that physical death is not necessarily evil. In a letter to the Philippians, the apostle Paul was writing from prison to encourage the Christians. His letter was filled with hope and encouragement, but it also was tinted with some very pertinent comments about the way that Paul (and God) view death. In Philippians 1:21-23, Paul wrote:
For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I live on in the flesh, this will mean fruit from my labor; yet what I shall choose I cannot tell. For I am hard pressed between the two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better (emp. added).
According to the skeptic, the death of an innocent person is always, in every case, an evil thing. In these verses, however, Paul lays that faulty assumption to rest. Paul, a faithful Christian, said that death was a welcome visitor. In fact, Paul said that the end of his physical life on this Earth would be “far better” than its continuation. For Paul, as well as for any faithful Christian, the cessation of physical life is not loss, but gain. Such would apply to innocent children as well, since they are in a safe condition and go to paradise when they die (see Butt, 2003).
Other verses in the Bible show that the loss of physical life is not inherently evil. The prophet Isaiah concisely summarized the situation when he was inspired to write:
The righteous perishes, and no man takes it to heart; merciful men are taken away, while no one considers that the righteous is taken away from evil. He shall enter into peace; they shall rest in their beds, each one walking in his uprightness (57:1-2, emp. added).
Isaiah recognized that people would view the death of the righteous incorrectly. He plainly stated that this incorrect view of death was due to the fact that most people do not think about the fact that when a righteous or innocent person dies, that person is “taken away from evil,” and enters “into peace.”
The psalmist wrote: “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints” (Psalm 116:15). Death is not inherently evil. In fact, the Bible indicates that death can be great gain in which a righteous person is taken away from evil and allowed to enter peace and rest. God looks upon the death of His faithful followers as something precious. Skeptics who charge God with wickedness because He has ended the physical lives of innocent babies are in error. They refuse to recognize the reality of the immortal soul. Instead of the death of innocent children being an evil thing, it is often a blessing for that child to be taken away from a life of hardship at the hands of a sinful society, and ushered into a paradise of peace and rest. In order for a skeptic to legitimately charge God with cruelty, the skeptic must prove that there is no immortal soul, and that physical life is the only reality—neither of which the skeptic can do. Failure to acknowledge the reality of the soul and the spiritual realm always will result in a distorted view of the nature of God. “The righteous perishes…while no one considers that the righteous is taken away from evil.”

REFERENCES

Butt, Kyle (2003), “Do Babies Go to Hell When They Die?,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2255.
Thompson, Bert (2001), The Origin, Nature, and Destiny of the Soul (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Wells, Steve (2001), Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, [On-line], URL: http://www.Skepticsannotatedbible.com.

“Jesus Didn’t Condemn Homosexuality” by Kyle Butt, M.Div.



http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1627

“Jesus Didn’t Condemn Homosexuality”

by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

By and large, the American culture is aggressively promoting the sinful lifestyle of homosexuality. In the midst of such pressure, many people who call themselves Christians are caving in and accepting this perverted lifestyle in spite of God’s clear teachings against it (Butt, 2003). Just recently, the country singer Carrie Underwood stated that her Christian faith led her to support gay marriage (Nilles, 2012). In truth, the life and teachings of Jesus Christ could never be accurately understood to lead a person to conclude that homosexual marriage is moral (Miller and Harrub, 2004).
One of the most common arguments made in support of homosexuality is that Jesus Christ did not explicitly condemn the practice. Supposedly, since Jesus never stated specifically: “Homosexuality is a sin,” then His failure to denounce the lifestyle can be interpreted to mean that He approved of it. This reasoning is riddled with error.
First, Jesus explained to His followers that He did not have time to teach them everything they needed to know. He told them that the Holy Spirit would bring to their remembrance all that He had taught, and would include additional teaching that He had not had time to cover. He told His disciples: “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of truth has come, He will guide you into all truth” (John 16:12-13). When we look to the inspired writings of the New Testament, we see the authors boldly and specifically condemning the practice based on the revelation they received from the Holy Spirit (Miller and Harrub, 2004). Thus, it is wrong to suggest that only the “words in red” are Jesus’ teachings. On the contrary, He foretold that more teaching would be done after His return to heaven due to the fact that the apostles “could not bear” all of it at the time.
Second, even if Jesus did not explicitly condemn the practice (though He actually did, as will be noted later), that certainly could not be used as evidence that He condoned the practice. For instance, where does Jesus explicitly state that bestiality is wrong? Where in the New Testament does Jesus state that polygamy is wrong? Where are the “words in red” that specifically condemn pedophilia? Are we to suppose that the Son of God condoned using crystal meth because there is not an explicit statement from Jesus’ mouth that says “do not smoke crystal meth?” The idea that silence from Jesus on a subject means He approved of or condoned the practice cannot be substantiated.
Finally, it must be considered that Jesus did, in fact, speak against homosexuality. On numerous occasions, Jesus condemned the sins of adultery (Matthew 19:18), sexual immorality (Matthew 19:9) and fornication (Matthew 15:19). These terms describe any type of sexual intercourse that is not within the confines of a marriage ordained by God. Jesus then proceeded to define exactly what God views as a morally permissible marriage. He stated:
Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate (Matthew 19:4-6).
By defining marriage as between one male and one female, Jesus effectively condemned all other arrangements, including but not limited to one man and two women, one woman and two men, three men and one woman, three men and three women, one man and one man, one woman and one animal, etc. You can see the overwhelming logic of such. For Jesus to have to explicitly condemn every assortment of genders and numbers would be absurd. When He defined marriage between one man and one woman, He clearly showed that such an arrangement is the only one authorized by God.
Several years ago a man named Cory Moore “legally married his 2004 Cherry ES-335” Gibson guitar (“Man Marries Guitar,” 2007). He said: “The day I got her, I just knew she was the one…. I know it seems weird, but I really love her—like, really love her, with all my heart. I just wanted to make it official” (2007). Are we to conclude that because Jesus never specifically condemned a man marrying his guitar then the Son of God approved of such? To ask is to answer. In 2006, 41-year-old Sharon Tendler married a dolphin (“Woman Marries Dolphin,” 2006). Jesus never said one word explicitly about refraining from marrying a dolphin. Does that mean His “silence” should be viewed as approval? Not in any way.
Homosexuality is a sin. It always has been, and it always will be. The inspired New Testament writers repeatedly teach that to be the case. Jesus explained that the Holy Spirit would bring to the inspired writers information that they could not handle at the time of His departing. In addition, Jesus did explicitly define marriage as being between one man and one woman. The ruse to suggest that Jesus approves of homosexuality because He never expressly condemned it cannot be sustained logically, nor can it be defended on any type of moral grounds. The person who presumes to claim to be a Christian, and yet supports homosexuality, misunderstands the teachings of Christ and needs to repent and stop approving of a perverted, destructive practice that Jesus condemns (Matthew 19:1-9).

REFERENCES

Butt, Kyle (2003), “Homosexuality—Sin, or Cultural Bad Habit?” Apologetics Press,http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=7&article=1239.
“Man Marries Guitar” (2007), http://www.messandnoise.com/discussions/865688.
Miller, Dave and Brad Harrub (2004), “An Investigation of the Biblical Evidence Against Homosexuality,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=557.
Nilles, Billy (2012), “Carrie Underwood Reveals She Supports Gay Marriage,” http://www.hollywoodlife.com/2012/06/11/carrie-underwood-supports-gay-marriage-christian/.
“Woman Marries Dolphin” (2006), http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/woman-marries-dolphin/2006/01/01/1136050339590.html.

“I, Not the Lord, Say...” by Eric Lyons, M.Min.




http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=2075

“I, Not the Lord, Say...”

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Q.

What did the apostle Paul mean by the statement, “But to the rest I, not the Lord, say...” (1 Corinthians 7:12)? Does this phrase indicate that what Paul subsequently wrote was uninspired?

A.

Considering how many times Paul claimed to write and preach by inspiration of God, it is irresponsible to conclude that he was denying inspiration when addressing marriages between Christians and non-Christians (1 Corinthians 7:12-16). Earlier in this letter, Paul noted that while in Corinth, his preaching was “not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God” (2:4-5). Paul contrasted human wisdom with the wisdom and power of God, and declared that he had the latter. Later, in this same epistle, Paul wrote: “If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord” (14:37, emp. added; cf. 7:40). Paul also claimed inspiration in his other epistles (Galatians 1:12; 1 Thessalonians 4:8,15). Even Peter alluded to Paul’s writings as being a part of Scripture, and thus inspired (2 Peter 3:15-16).
When Paul wrote that he (rather than the Lord) was addressing a particular marriage relationship, he did not mean that he was speaking without authority from God. He simply meant that he was making application of marital truths that the Lord did not specifically expound upon while on Earth. Jesus most certainly was the Master Teacher (cf. Matthew 7:28-29; John 7:46), but He obviously did not specifically address every subject under the Sun. Thankfully, through His inspired apostles and prophets, more specific truths and applications eventually were revealed. Christians have every reason to believe that such truths originated with “the Spirit of truth,” Who guided Paul and the rest of the Bible writers “into all truth” (John 16:13).

Did God Seduce Mary? by Kyle Butt, M.Div.



http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=4663


Did God Seduce Mary?

by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Recently we received an e-mail at Apologetics Press from a skeptic who accused God of breaking one of His own commandments. The skeptic cited Exodus 20:17, which is the final commandment in the list of the Ten Commandments, that states: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.” The skeptic then stated that “God most certainly wronged Joseph when He seduced Mary, the betrothed of Joseph.” Did God violate His own laws of morality when the Holy Spirit came upon Mary so that she conceived Jesus? Not in any way.
First, it must be stated emphatically that there was no sexual seduction of any kind involved in the conception of Jesus in Mary’s womb. In fact, that is just the point of the miraculous, virgin birth of Christ. Hundreds of years before Christ was conceived in the flesh, the prophet Isaiah had stated: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear and Son, and shall call His name Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14). The New Testament writers stressed the fact that Mary was a virgin when Christ was conceived (Matthew 1:23). When the angel announced to Mary that she would conceive a child, she said: “How can this be, since I do not know a man?” Mary’s response makes it clear that there was no seduction involved. Instead, it was a miraculous conception that had nothing to do with sexual intercourse. Mary remained a virgin until after giving birth to Jesus, at which time Mary and her husband Joseph came together in marital relations and conceived several other children (Pinedo, 2009).
Notice the skeptic attempts to lump Jehovah God in with the grotesquely immoral pagan gods whose seductions and sexual perversions fill the pages of ancient mythology. Zeus, the “father of the gods” was a mythological deity whose sexual appetite and rapine seductions were all too well known. During some of his more infamous escapades he seduced Europa by turning himself into a white bull, running off with her on his back, and ravishing her on the isle of Crete. He had an affair with Io and then turned her into a heifer. He seduced Semele and eventually killed her by showing her his full, godly glory. These are but a few of Zeus’ “conquests” (Hunt, n.d).
Only the most prejudiced reader would attempt to relate the conception of Jesus to the seductions perpetrated by the pagans gods. In the historical account of Jesus’ conception there is no contact by God in any type of physical form with Mary. Mary was completely aware of how babies are normally conceived, yet she stressed the fact that she had been involved in no physical, sexual activity that would bring about pregnancy. The biblical text emphatically states that Mary was a virgin when she conceived and gave birth to Jesus. Mary was not seduced, violated, ravished, or involved in any sexual way with Jehovah. In a miraculous event that had nothing to do with sexual seduction, the Holy Spirit “came upon her” (Luke 1:35), and brought about the conception of the Messiah. The skeptic has no legitimate grounds to accuse Jehovah God of immorality in His interaction with Mary. Such an accusation truly reveals more about what is in the sinful heart of the skeptic than it does about God’s character.

REFERENCES

Hunt, J.M, (No date), “Zeus Lovers,” http://edweb.sdsu.edu/people/bdodge/scaffold/gg/zeuslover.html.
Pinedo, Moisés (2009), “Was Mary a Virgin Her Whole Life?,” Apologetics Press,http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=105&article=2665.

Christ Emptied…Himself! by Eric Lyons, M.Min.



http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=432

Christ Emptied…Himself!

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Through the years, some theologians have used Philippians 2:6-7 to defend the idea that the second Person of the Godhead, at the time of the incarnation (when “the Word became flesh”—John 1:14), “emptied Himself” of deity. It has been alleged that whereas Christ existed in the “form of God” prior to the incarnation, He “emptied” himself of that status while on Earth.
Despite the popularity of such ideas in some religious circles, they cannot be proven by citing Philippians 2:6-7 or any other passage in the Bible. In Philippians 2:7, Paul wrote that Jesus “emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men.” Exactly what did the apostle mean by the phrase, “emptied himself”? Because it is assumed that the verb “emptied” (Greekekenōsen) requires an object (a genitive qualifier), then Christ must have “emptied himself” ofsomething. However, as Gordon Fee has mentioned in his commentary on Philippians, “Christ did not empty Himself of anything, the text simply says that He emptied himself, He poured Himself out” (1995, p. 210, emp. added). The NIV seems to have captured this sense by stating that He “madehimself nothing” (emp. added). The Greek word kenόō literally means “to empty; to make empty; or to make vain or void.” This word is rendered “made void” in Romans 4:14, where Paul stated that “faith is made void.” Faith did not empty itself of anything, rather faith emptied itself. Similarly, commenting on Jesus death as if it had already occurred, Isaiah wrote: “He [Jesus—EL] poured out his soul unto death” (Isaiah 53:12). What did Christ pour out? Himself.
But how does Philippians 2:7 say Christ emptied Himself? “Grammatically, Paul explains the ‘emptying’ of Jesus in the next phrase: ‘Taking the form of a servant and coming in the likeness of men’” (Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary). Unlike Adam and Eve, who made an attempt to seize equality with God (Genesis 3:5), Jesus, the last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45), humbled Himself and obediently accepted the role of the bondservant. As N.T. Wright stated: “The real humiliation of the incarnation and the cross is that the one who was himself God, and who never during the whole process stopped being God, could embrace such a vocation” (1986, p. 346).
Although this text does not instruct us regarding of what Christ emptied Himself, we can be assured that there was no change in His divine nature. While Jesus was on Earth, He claimed equality with God the Father (John 10:28) and allowed others to call him “God” (John 20:30; Matthew 16:16). He also accepted worship, even though He plainly taught that only God is worthy of worship (Matthew 8:2; Matthew 4:10). If one contends that Jesus was not divine while upon the Earth, then they make Him either a fraud or a madman.
Philippians 2:7 does not teach that Christ emptied himself of His deity. Rather, to His divinity He added humanity (i.e., He was “made in the likeness of men”). For the first time, He was subject to such things as hunger, thirst, pain, disease, and temptation (cf. John 19:28; Hebrews 4:15). In short, He came to Earth as a God-man.

REFERENCES

Barnes’ Notes (1997), Electronic Database, Biblesoft.
Fee, Gordon D. (1995), Paul’s Letter to the Philippians (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary (1986), Electronic Database, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Biblesoft.
Wright, N.T. (1986), “αρπαγμός and the Meaning of Philippians 2:5-11,” Journal of Theological Studies, 37:321-52, April.

Have Dinosaur and Human Fossils Been Found Together? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.



http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4664

Have Dinosaur and Human Fossils Been Found Together?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Dinosaur fossils have been found on every continent on Earth; humans have inhabited, and continue to inhabit, every continent on Earth. Thus, it would seem that if dinosaurs and humans really did live as contemporaries at one time, as creationists contend, human fossils would have been found alongside, near, or in the same strata as dinosaur fossils. So, is there evidence from the fossil record of their coexistence?
Admittedly, at times questions like these appear somewhat puzzling, at least on the surface. We know from the biblical record that dinosaurs and humans coexisted (Genesis 1; Exodus 20:11). Furthermore, many ancient paintings, figurines, rock carvings, and historical references confirm they were contemporaries upon the Earth (see Lyons and Butt, 2008). Still, many wonder why, at first glance, the fossil record seems not to substantiate creationists’ claims that dinosaurs and humans were contemporaries?

Fossilization is Rare

First, one must understand that fossils are rare, relatively speaking. Not every living plant, animal, or human fossilizes after death. In fact, it is extremely rare for things once living to fossilize. Dead animals lying in a field or on the side of the road do not fossilize. In order for something to become fossilized, it must be buried rapidly in just the right place. Consider as an example all the bison that were killed and left to decompose on the Great Plains of the United States. In the late 19th century, a man could purchase a window seat on a train, have the conductor stop close to a herd of American bison, and pull out his rifle and fire upon the herd until he ran out of ammunition. The locomotive would then move on, leaving behind countless dead and dying animals. By the end of the 19thcentury, the bison population in America had been reduced from millions to approximately 500 (Jones, n.d.). What happened to the millions of carcasses? They are not scattered all along the Great Plains today. Why? Because their flesh and bones were scavenged by insects, worms, birds, and other animals. The smallest portions were digested by fungi, bacteria, and enzymatic degradation until the buffalo remains disappeared. Even oxygen plays a role in the breakdown of chemicals that make up living things.
Evolutionary scientist James Powell described another situation where a rather large population of animals died. He wrote:
[I]n the winter after the great Yellowstone fires of 1988, thousands of elk perished from extreme cold coupled with lack of food. Late the following spring, their carcasses were strewn everywhere. Yet only a few years later, bones from the great elk kill are scarce. The odds that a single one will be preserved so that it can be found 65 million years from now approach zero. At best we can expect to find fossil evidence of only a tiny fraction of the animals that once lived. The earth’s normal processes destroy or hide most of the clues (1998, p. xv, emp. added).
Normally, as Powell indicated, living things do not fossilize. Under normal conditions, living things decay and rot. It is atypical for plants and animals to fossilize, because they must avoid even the tiniest of scavengers, bacteria, fungi, etc. For bones to fossilize, they must be buried—the sooner and deeper the better. Mud, silt, and other fine sediments are good for fossilization because they can block out oxygen. In this “protected” environment, bones and teeth may even last long enough to mineralize. But, normally, carcasses do not find themselves in such environments.

Not as Many Dinosaur Fossils as You Think

Although dinosaur graveyards have been discovered in various countries around the world (e.g., Tanzania, Africa; Jenson, Utah [USA]) where thousands of dinosaur bones are jumbled together (obviously due to some sort of catastrophe—e.g., a flood), most people are unaware of the fact that, in museums, “in spite of the intense popular and scientific interest in the dinosaurs and the well-publicized efforts of generations of dinosaur hunters, only about 2,100 articulated dinosaur bones (two or more aligned in the same position as in life)” exist (Powell, 1998, p. xv, parenthetical comment in orig.; see also Dodson, 1990, 87:7608; Lewin, 1990). Furthermore, in an article in the October 1990 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Peter Dodson of the University of Pennsylvania reported that almost half (45.3%) of all dinosaur genera are based on a singlespecimen, and 74% are represented by five specimens or less (87:7608). Even some of the most famous dinosaurs are based on a fraction of what they were originally. For example, the 120-foot-longArgentinosaurus replica (housed in the Fernbank Museum of Natural History in Atlanta, Georgia) is based on only 10 percent of its remains (a dozen backbone vertebrae, a few limb bones and part of the hips) [Meyer, 2002]. Truthfully, although dinosaurs have captured the attention of scientists for more than 150 years, their fossilized remains are not as prevalent as many would think.

Human Fossils—Extremely Scarce!

Humans make up an infinitesimal portion of the fossil record. Due to the number of drawings of our alleged human ancestors that appear in the news on a regular basis, one might get the feeling that hominoid and human fossils are ubiquitous. But such is not the case. In a 1981 New Scientistarticle, John Reader wrote: “The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table" (89:802). One year later, Lyall Watson similarly stated: “The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin” (1982, 90:44, emp. added). In a conversation with James Powell, president and director of the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, renowned evolutionary paleoanthropologist Meave Leakey gave some insight into her frustrations in searching for hominid (or human) fossils when she described her “nearly futile hunt for human bone in a new field area as four years of hard work producing only three nondescript scraps” (see Powell, 1998, p. xv, emp. added). In 2004, David Begun concluded an article in Science titled “The Earliest Hominins—Is Less More?” by admitting: “[T]he level of uncertainty in the available direct evidence at this time renders irreconcilable differences of opinion inevitable. The solution is in the mantra of all paleontologists: We need more fossils!” (303:1479-1480, emp. added). Although hominid/human fossils are among the most sought-after fossils in the world, scientists readily admit that few such fossils have been found.
As you can see, the question “Why don’t we find dinosaur and human fossils together?” is extremely misleading. The truth is, fossils themselves are rare. And, of all those things that do fossilize, it appears that less than 1% are vertebrates (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, or mammals) [see Snelling, 1991, p. 30]. Furthermore, human fossils make up a microscopic part of the fossil record. Searching for one is like trying to find the one proverbial needle in a haystack. The real question then, is not, “Why don’t we find dinosaur and human fossils together?” but, “Where are all of the human fossils?”
Simply because human fossils apparently have not been found with dinosaur fossils does not make the case for the coexistence of dinosaurs and humans any less credible. Think about it. Where are the human fossils that have been found with the recently extinct Pyrenean Ibex? Can we prove that Dodo birds and humans once lived together by observing their fossilized remains together in a particular layer of rock? We know that they once coexisted, but can a person point to the fossil record for such information? The chance of finding human fossils is rare. The chance of finding exactly the combination of fossils for which one is searching (in this case, dinosaurs and humans) is even less likely.

A Lesson Learned from “Living Fossils”

We learn from “living fossils” that animals and plants can live long periods of time (allegedly millions of years) without leaving behind fossil evidence. For example, evolutionists believe Gingko trees were thriving 240 million years ago, before dinosaurs allegedly evolved (see Krock, 2003). Interestingly, Gingko fossils are absent in rock layers reportedly representing many millions of years, yet they are alive today (Hodge, 2006, p. 183). Consequently, simply because they are absent in certain rock strata does not mean they were non-existent during the alleged millions of years it took those layers of rock to form. Likewise, simply because human fossils are missing in certain layers of rock does not mean they were not living at the time those rock layers were formed.
Consider also the living fossil known as the coelacanth. From 1839 (when fossil coelacanths were first discovered—Perkins, 2001) to 1938, evolutionists alleged that these fish were the missing link in the evolution of fish to amphibians (“Diver Finds…,” n.d.). Supposedly, coelacanths had existed “for nearly 400 million years” (“Diver Finds…”). Evolutionists firmly believed that “the coelacanth became extinct about 70 million years ago [about the same time dinosaurs died out—EL] because their fossils are not found in any deposits higher than this” (Hodge, 2006, p. 183). Science News declared thatcoelacanths “disappeared from the fossil record 75 million years ago” (Perkins, 2001, emp. added). Until 1938, evolutionists believed that men and coelacanths could not possibly have lived at the same time. These creatures were known only from rock layers that evolutionists claimed were 70+ million years old.
On December 24, 1938, the scientific world was rocked when an unidentified fish five feet long and over 100 pounds was brought to shore in South Africa. It was caught in the Indian Ocean near Madagascar. The fisherman who netted the fish (having no idea what the creature’s proper name was) called it “the great sea lizard” because its pectoral fins looked more like little fringed legs. Once scientists examined this strange creature, however, they confirmed what formerly was thought impossible—a live coelacanth had been caught in modern times (see “Coelacanth,” n.d.)! It was as shocking as if a living T. rex had been found. After all, they supposedly became extinct at the same time.
Since 1938, more than 100 coelacanths have been caught and many more sighted (see “Coelacanth”). In 1952, they were seen swimming near the Comoro Islands in the Indian Ocean. Another population was found in 1998 off the coast of Indonesia. Surprisingly, local Indonesian fishermen were quite familiar with this fish, having been catching them for years; though scientists were totally unaware they lived in that region.
Modern-day coelacanths look exactly like their fossil counterparts (which are mistakenly dated as being millions of years old). This living fossil is a thorn in the side of evolutionists. It makes a mockery of evolutionary dating methods, provides further proof of the myths of missing links, and exposes their “facts” for what they really are—unproven assumptions.
Moreover, consider that evolutionists admit that the fossil record of the past “70 million years” shows no evidence of coelacanths. Yet, we know they lived during these alleged “70 million years,” because they are still alive today. Like Gingko trees, coelacanths’ absence in certain rock strata does not mean they were not living during the alleged millions of years it took the rock layers to form; it simply means that they were not buried and fossilized in those layers of rock. Similarly, humans just as easily could have been alive when the various rock layers were formed, without leaving human fossils. Think about it: we have just as much fossil evidence for humans living the past “70 million years” on Earth as we do coelacanths and Gingkos. In short, living fossils help us understand that simply because human fossils are missing in certain layers of rock does not mean humans were not living at the time those rock layers were formed.

Slim Chance

Considering that sedimentary rock (the type of rock in which fossils are most likely to be discovered) covers about 75% of Earth’s land area and much of the ocean floor, and is tens of thousands of feet thick in certain places (Crawford, 1988, 17:278), even if there are dinosaur and human remains fossilized in the same rock, the chance of them being exposed, discovered, recognized, and reported together is very improbable. They might be exposed somewhere in the world today (like in a mine, cliff, or road cutting), but unless they are discovered before the Sun, wind, and rain turn them to dust, such exposure is useless to scientists.

Humans and the Flood

It could be that in the time of Noah, the human population was confined mainly to the Middle East, while most dinosaurs roamed in other parts of the world. If this was the case, and the global Flood of Noah’s day caused most of the fossils on Earth (as creationists believe), then one would not expect to find many (if any) humans buried with dinosaurs. What’s more, humans would have been less likely (than various animals) to be buried rapidly and fossilized during the Flood. As Bodie Hodge noted:
Since the rains of Noah’s Flood took weeks to cover the earth, many people [unlike dinosaurs—EL] could have made it to boats, grabbed on to floating debris, and so on. Some may have made it to higher ground. Although they wouldn’t have lasted long and would have eventually perished, they might not fossilize (Hodge, 2006, p. 179).
The fact is, in most cases, living things do not fossilize.
[D]ead things decompose or get eaten. They just disappear and nothing is left. The 2004 tsunami in Southeast Asia was a shocking reminder of the speed with which water and other forces can eliminate all trace of bodies, even when we know where to look. According to the United Nation’s Office of the Special Envoy for Tsunami Recovery, nearly 43,000 tsunami victims were never found (Hodge, p. 180).

Could it be…?

It may very well be the case that human and dinosaur fossilized footprints have been discovered together, or at the very least in the same vicinity or in the same layer of rock in which dinosaur tracks are found (see Woetzel, 2013, p. 28). It may also be that human and dinosaur bones have been discovered together in times past, but for at least two reasons, were not reported. First, someone who might have found these bones in a quarry could react by saying, “Look at these old bones. Fascinating!... Okay, now, hurry up and hand me another explosive so we can meet our quota of coal for the day.” It could be that the fossil evidence for the cohabitation of men and dinosaurs went up in smoke long ago. Second, it may be possible that human bones have been found by scientists alongside dinosaur fossils, yet simply have not been reported widely. We are not suggesting that all evolutionary scientists are dishonest. Rather, we simply believe they are blinded by presuppositions that affect their judgment (even as many “Christians” are). Since evolutionists seem so certain that hominid/human fossils should never be found in layers of rock more than a few million years old, if they ever did, likely they would just explain away the evidence. “It just cannot be, if evolution is true…. There must be some explanation other than humans and dinosaurs really lived together.” If evolutionists can “confuse” a dolphin’s rib for a human collarbone (Anderson, 1983, p. 199), or an extinct pig’s tooth for a human tooth (e.g., Nebraska Man; see Harrub and Thompson, 2003, pp. 88-89), then similar mistakes could easily be made concerning human and dinosaur fossils. If one ever has been found with another, scientists could have misinterpreted the “anomaly.”

CONCLUSION

It may be that dinosaur and human fossils are never found together. But, whether they are or not, the evidence for the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs at one time in the past is undeniable to the unbiased truth seeker (see Lyons and Butt, 2008). Indeed, there is a mountain of biblical, historical, and physical evidence which indicates that dinosaurs and humans once walked this Earth at the same time.

REFERENCES

Anderson, I. (1983), “Humanoid Collarbone Exposed as Dolphin’s Rib,” New Scientist, April 28.
Begun, David (2004), “The Earliest Hominins—Is Less More?” Science, 3003:1478-1480, March 5.
“Coelacanth” (no date), American Museum of Natural History, http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20010505/bob13.asp.
Crawford, Maria Luisa (1988), “Sedimentary Rock,” The World Book Encyclopedia (Chicago, IL: World Book).
“Diver Finds ‘Living Fossil’” (no date), Science Now, http://www.calacademy.org/science_now/archive/headline_science/coelacanth_010601.php.
Dodson, Peter (1990), “Counting Dinosaurs: How Many Kinds Were There?” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 87:7608-7612, October.
Harrub, Brad and Bert Thompson (2003), The Truth About Human Origins (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Hodge, Bodie (2006), The New Answers Book (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).
Jones, Alvin T. (no date), “The American Bison,” http://www.texasbison.org/bisonstory.html.
Krock, Lexi (2003), “Other Fish in the Sea,” NOVA, January, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/fish/other.html.
Lewin, Roger (1990), “Science: Dinosaur Count Reveals Surprisingly Few Species,” New Scientist Archive, 128[1745], December, http://archive.newscientist.com/secure/article/article.jsp?rp=1&id=mg12817452.700.
Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2008), The Dinosaur Delusion: Dismantling Evolution’s Most Cherished Icon (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Meyer, Pedro (2002), “Does the Original Matter?” WashingtonPost.com, http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/essays/zonezero/jan_02.htm.
Perkins, Sid (2001), “The Latest Pisces of an Evolutionary Puzzle—Discovery of Coelacanth off Coast of South Africa,” Science News, May 5, 159:282, www. sciencenews.org/articles/20010505/bob13.asp.
Powell, James Lawrence (1998), Night Comes to the Cretaceous (New York: Harcourt Brace).
Reader, John (1981), “Whatever Happened to Zinjanthropus?” New Scientist, 89:802, March 26.
Snelling, Andrew (1991), “Where are All the Human Fossils?” Creation Ex Nihilo, 14[1]:28-33, December 1991-February 1992.
Watson, Lyall (1982), “The Water People,” Science Digest, 90[5]:44, May.
Woetzel, Dave (2013), Chronicles of Dinosauria (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).

Has Life Been Made From Scratch? by Joe Deweese, Ph.D.



http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3597

Has Life Been Made From Scratch?

by Joe Deweese, Ph.D.

Some news sources are making the claim of creating life from scratch. They assert that scientists have been able to make life from “four bottles of chemicals” (Sanders, 2010). The statements are made in reference to the work of Dr. Craig Venter and colleagues at the J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI) when the team announced the success of efforts to replace the chromosome of a bacterial cell with a “chemically synthesized genome” (Gibson, 2010). The transplantation of a bacterial genome is an impressive accomplishment, one that may mean very little to most people, but did the scientists truly make life from scratch?
In order to answer the central question, it is important to understand the process for design, synthesis, and assembly of the genome. First, the DNA sequences that encode the genome of the bacteriumMycoplasma mycoides were manipulated on a computer. The changes made in the genome included deleting some nonessential DNA sequences, inserting a few extra genes, and inserting “watermark” sequences that would be used to verify that the transplant was successful and DNA in the organism was the modified DNA. Interestingly, these watermarks include coded sequences with names and e-mail addresses, a creative step that provided a unique tracking capability for the procedure.
Second, the team partnered with a company to synthesize the DNA in ~1080 base-pair sequences. (DNA consists of two complementary strands of bases that “pair up” to make a double-stranded or duplex molecule.) It took 1000 of the sequences to make the entire set of DNA that ultimately would be required to provide the instructions for asexual reproduction of the bacteria. Additionally, the scientists were challenged with the complex task of assembling the DNA fragments into a much larger one million base-pair (Mbp) synthetic chromosome. (By comparison, there are three billion base pairs of DNA in one copy—23 chromosomes—of the human genome). The ~1000 fragments of ~1000 base pairs each were “stitched” together inside yeast cells through a process of DNA recombination which is inherent to the cell. The team first constructed ~10,000 base pair DNA sections and then ~100,000 base pair sections before stitching the final ~1 Mbp chromosome together. Clearly, the recent publication chronicles a complex series of events that results in the reporting of the design, synthesis, and assembly of the requisite information for controlling continuous self-replication.
The assembly of the final artificial bacterial chromosome with the imbedded natural genes and the “watermark” sequences was confirmed using several molecular techniques, and the chromosome ultimately inserted into a bacterial cell of a closely related yet distinctive species (Mycoplasma capricolum) where the original DNA had been expunged. The recipient bacterial cell (M. capricolum) had intact proteins and RNA molecules, which included all of the required, preformed, and functional enzymes to support self-replication once the new chromosome was inserted. Researchers grew the cells through a number of cell divisions, which eventually diluted out, degraded, and replaced the original M. capricolum proteins. Thus, the researchers were left with a “synthetic” cell from M. capricolum that was now producing proteins from a “synthetic” DNA molecule coding for genes originally from M. mycoides.
Overall, the technical expertise demonstrated in the report is quite an impressive accomplishment.DNA synthesis, cloning, and recombination techniques are frequently used but have never been applied on the scale of millions of base pairs. Furthermore, the experiment demonstrated that there is a minimal set of genes that can be used to run a basic bacterial cell. The researchers from JCVI had previously demonstrated that there is a “minimal gene complement” that would sustain the life of another bacterium, Myscoplasma genitalium (Fraser, 1995). In the Fraser report, the researchers deleted ~100 of M. genitalium’s ~480 genes one at a time and found it could still survive (but could not survive when multiple genes were deleted simultaneously). The recent work of JCVI helps to support the concept that there is a minimal set of genes that can support life resulting in the interesting question: how could “simpler” life exist (much less develop) with fewer genes than the “minimal gene complement”? A question that is controversial—and, to say the least, has enormous implications for whether life could develop from nonlife.
There are several important considerations to bear in mind when considering the impact of the study, namely: 1) the DNA sequences for all of the genes were already designed and synthesizers were used to generate the actual DNA; 2) the recipient cell contained preformed enzymes and other factors needed to support life—the cell was not “made from scratch”; 3) the sole replaced component in the recipient cell was the “instructions,” that is, the DNA; and 4) the researchers relied on livingsystems to help assemble the chromosome into its final form through the stitching process in yeast described above.
The JCVI experiment is similar to what happens when an egg is fertilized. The proteins and other factors are already present in an unfertilized egg, just as they were in the recipient bacterial cell. Upon fertilization, the DNA from the mate is joined together with the DNA already in the egg, allowing growth and development to begin. The important thing in both cases is that it is not simply the DNAalone that is needed. Instead, a new living cell requires many preformed proteins and RNA molecules in order to support and sustain life.
One overly simplistic yet accurate analogy compares the JCVI process to that of taking the hard drive out of one computer and replacing it with a second hard drive that was set up separately (“News to Note,” 2010). In the hard drive analogy, the computer and all of its components already exist, and only the hard drive is replaced. In the case of the JCVI experiment, the cell and its components already exist, and only the DNA is replaced. While simple in its description, it is important to note that the experiment overcame numerous technically difficult steps before finding success. Moreover, it is important to remember that even the DNA was adapted from a living organism. In other words, the “hard drive” was “programmed” using pre-existing “software.”

CONCLUSION

It is true that this experiment is very impressive, and the challenges that were overcome should not be dismissed lightly. In fact, the results provide evidence for the complexity of life. The JCVI researchers started with the genome of an organism that is among the smallest known to man. It contains as few genes as possible to sustain life. Yet, it was a long (over 10 years) and very expensive (~$40 million) process to copy the genome of this simple organism, assemble the copy into an intact chromosome, and insert this chromosome into an already living cell (Pennisi, 2010). It is fascinating how much effort went in to this procedure—which really did not create new life; rather it simply modified existing molecular machinery that is required for life.
While there are many who fear that the JCVI process may open the door to great and terrible power in the hands of scientists, it is likely an unwarranted fear for what will happen with the technology. Similar to all of nature, in the right hands and with pure motives, it may at some point be used for good or, at the whim of corrupt goals, could generate evil results. Ultimately it must be acknowledged that God is in control, and the evidence of His handiwork is apparent in even the simplest of microorganisms.

REFERENCES

Gibson D.G., Glass J.I., Lartigue C., Noskov V.N., Chuang R.Y., Algire M.A., Benders G.A., Montague M.G., Ma L., Moodie M.M., Merryman C., Vashee S., Krishnakumar R., Assad-Garcia N., Andrews-Pfannkoch C., Denisova E.A., Young L., Qi Z.Q., Segall-Shapiro T.H., Calvey C.H., Parmar P.P., Hutchison C.A. 3rd, Smith H.O., Venter J.C (2010), “Creation of a Bacterial Cell Controlled by a Chemically Synthesized Genome,” Science, May 20, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1190719.
Fraser C.M., Gocayne J.D., White O., Adams M.D., Clayton R.A, Fleischmann R.D., Bult C.J., Kerlavage A.R., Sutton G., Kelley J.M., Fritchman R.D., Weidman J.F., Small K.V., Sandusky M., Fuhrmann J., Nguyen D., Utterback T.R., Saudek D.M., Phillips C.A., Merrick J.M., Tomb J.F., Dougherty B.A., Bott K.F., Hu P.C., Lucier T.S., Peterson S.N., Smith H.O., Hutchison C.A. 3rd, Venter J.C. (1995), “The Minimal Gene Complement of Mycoplasma Genitalium,” Science, October 20, 270(5235): 397-403.
“News to Note” (2010), Answers in Genesis, May 22, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/05/22/news-to-note-05222010.
Pennisi, E. (2010), “Synthetic Genome Brings New Life to Bacterium,” Science, May 21, vol. 328, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/328/5981/958.
Sanders, Laura (2010), “Genome from a Bottle,” Science News, May 20, http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/59438/title/Genome_from_a_bottle_.