Chicken or the Egg- Which First?

It is a common mind teaser: “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” I’ve heard it repeated multiple times. Each generation of young children think they are the first to hear it and will ask us older ones the question. That made me wonder, “Has evolutionary science tackled the question?” Sure enough. Before looking it up though, I tried to second-guess what evolutionists would say. I laughed when I discovered I was 100% correct. Essentially, they dodge the question by saying “both.” How is that possible? Although I did indeed confirm it on a few sites, a Wikipedia article surmised it very concisely: A bird that was the predecessor of the modern day chicken (the parent), laid an egg that was a chicken (the offspring). When I read baloney like this, I wonder how anyone can swallow the evolutionist’s ideas. First of all, anyone that knows anything about evolution will claim that small, almost indistinguishable changes took place over eons of time. It was not / is not the case of “papa was not a chicken, but sonny boy is.” It would have had to have been that papa was a chicken and mama was a chicken and sonny boy was hatched a chicken with some minor change, maybe not even outwardly visible, that made him a little different (read “birth defect”) than the parents. And then, as the evolutionists would tell the story, for some baffling unknown reason, chickens ceased changing.

Next up, those believing in creation. Again, my guess was they would (should) pick the adult chicken. The reason would have to be the creation account. As noted in Genesis 1:21, God created the “winged flying creatures.” Over eons, did small genetic changes take place? Possible. One thing that comes to mind is the modern-day crossbreeding of dogs or cats to arrive at a supposed new breed. But crossbreeding doesn’t change the species nor can it in any way be thought of as evolutionary.

But then I had to wonder if the question was less about chickens and more about “Did adults or babies come first?” I suppose one reason the evolutionists would never say it was the adult that came first is because they would have to answer the question “Where?” Yes, “where did it come from?” Since they’d never be able to answer that question and maybe even because they just want to be disagreeable when it comes to what God states, they choose to say the child came first (or, even more outlandish, ‘they both came first.’) As far as the human species is concerned, there is ample scriptural evidence that they were made (Adam, then Eve) as a singularly unique couple. Not only is Creation hanging in the balance with this conclusion, but also mankind’s salvation.

About

Brainiacks Dispute the Bible

Isn’t it so encouraging when we read of so-called Bible “experts” that call Jesus a liar? (Yes, I am being both sarcastic and facetious.) Yet, that is exactly what this article is doing. How are they calling Jesus a liar? Matthew 19:4 quotes Jesus as saying: “Have you not read that the one who created them from the beginning made them male and female.”

Was Jesus merely stating the obvious – that we humans are male and female, but not that Adam and Eve where two literal people? No. We know this because of the matter of “sin” and the reason for the ransom. Romans 5:12 states: That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned.” (Other versions) Think about that for a moment. If, as these super-knowledgeable men quoted in the article claim (who surely must have been there at Creation in order to so blatantly dispute the Bible’s own words), that it was not one couple but a community, then how could all the “population of humans” all commit the same sin so that we all ended up imperfect today? Surely some of the “population of humans” wouldn’t have been guilty so that their progeny would not have inherited sin. Oh wait, I think I know. It must have been intermarriage that caused the contamination, right? LOL

Yet some more fake brain-iacks with unscriptural, and indeed anti-scriptural, teachings that fall apart when given serious consideration.

About

Neural Nets and Intelligent Design

Watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vZL3e02SnE

What I find interesting from a “believer’s” point of view are the following comments:

“Neural Nets ... allow the computer to operate a little bit like your brain operates… The elements of a neural net aren’t exactly like a neuron, they are much less complicated and there are far fewer of them.” - Calum Chase (at 19 seconds thru 35 seconds)

“The sort of things that go on in nature are often ... they are quite profound.” - Doug Orr (starting at 42 seconds)

These two quotes, one from an AI author and the other from a software engineer working at SwiftKey, help us to see that believing we are the result of random freaks of natural selection is much harder for a reasoning, logical, intelligent mind to accept than is the conviction that a higher power (God) made us. In fact, even if humans ever do manage to make a machine that matches the ability of the human brain, all it will demonstrate is that much higher intelligence than mankind currently, collectively possesses was necessary to compose such a design and device. Even after they make that device, they will need to shrink it down to fit into a human skull in order to match what humans now, and have for centuries, possessed. (When you consider all the “great” scientific minds working on AI today and yet they barely touch the complexity of what evolutionists ascribe to mindless, undirected changes, it is really baffling that those same scientists can claim, with a straight face, that mindless evolution did what they still cannot do.)

Human Eye And Evolutionists

I wish I would remember to keep links to some videos I see. However, when I view them, they typically agitate me so much, I don’t want to deal with them. Such was the case of a very pompous, self-assured evolutionist that declared that if the eye had really been a product of intelligent creation, it would not have been made, as he put it, “backwards.” Now the reason I wish I had this link again (and yes, I did search for it) is that I just came across some research that explains the issue and gives evidence that indeed this construction of the eye is an intelligent design.

I did however find a video by those making the same claim. It is commendable that they at least were not arrogant about it. They attempted to demonstrate their idea by illustrating the differences between different mussels. OK, so let’s think about this. There have been several iterations of steam-powered engines; and yes, I’d even venture that each successive design could have (but not necessarily so) drawn on the successes and failures of ones prior to it. BUT, does that mean that the first design evolved into the next one? Did it mindlessly become a different thing OR were the improvements in design an intelligent new modification? Modern society and even modern science throw around the word “evolution” so casually that they use it even when it is completely wrong to do so.

A cake and a cupcake both use flour, both have frosting, both have the same texture when done. However, it is completely possible that the flour used came from different countries. The sweetener used may also be different although tasting the same. Just as we can make something that “looks like” something else and yet be something new, so likewise the Bible is quite plain in saying that everything made came from the elements of the earth and each creative category in Genesis chapter one was a new one. Birds are birds, they didn't come from fish. Man is a distinct and unique new creation from monkeys, apes, or other mammals.

The logic of evolutionists may at times sound right, but when we ponder it, it truly makes no sense. The evolutionists’ bottom line is that there is no God, no intelligent design. This means we have no obligation to anyone. Our intelligence is inconsequential. Does such thinking promote respect for life, love and unity? No, it doesn't.

Plagiarized Fables?

This video (“Garden of Eden - In search of The Real Location of The Garden of Eden (Biblical origins of Mankind)”) claims to pinpoint the location of the garden of Eden as being at the base of the Persian Gulf.

Jonathan Kirsch  is interviewed as are a few others. He is a columnist for the Los Angeles Times in California who briefly studied Jewish history and he is a lawyer. At the bottom of the wikipedia link I just provided, note the Amazon books link. Read the comments of those that gave his Bible commentaries one star. There is adequate reason to be concerned about his writings, perceptions and viewpoints.

Bible’s Treatment of Women: Quote from Mr. Kirsch in this video (starting at: 03.:20): “Woman is shown again, and again, and again, in the pages of the Bible and long thereafter as the tempter, the seducer, the corrupter.” First of all, lets get rid of the “and long thereafter.” The misuse and misinterpretation of the Bible is not the fault of the Bible for whatever was written “long thereafter.” Now, consider the generalization “again, and again, and again.” Women, collectively and individually have been depicted in scripture in favorable light, but no mention of that is made. The reality is that men have also been depicted as acting in evil ways. In fact, more often than women, men who were supposed to be setting the example as leaders committed crimes that resulted in either severe punishment from God or in some cases even the death penalty. To this point, Mr. Kirsch has actually written a book about King David that portrays all his failings. So the point about the Bible picking on women as evil (implying that men are elevated above women) is false.

Creation & Contradictions? 26:02. “The Bible is apparently inconsistent and full of contradictions… It says that humans were created twice.” No, it doesn't, but nice try. The creation account gives a panoramic overview of the creative days in chapter one, which actually ends in Chapter 2, verse 3. Starting in verse 7, the writer “zooms in” to details related to mankind’s creation. No dual creation account. (And no, I didn't conveniently ignore verses 4 through 6. I’m just not going to treat those verses here because the point being discussed is the number of accounts of human creation--of which there is only one.) One cited contradiction is at  27:00. There, a Mr. Jason Boyett, author of “The Pocket Guide to the Bible,” states “in the first chapter of Genesis, Adam is created in the ‘image of God.’ In the second chapter he is created from the dust of the ground.” When I heard this, it sounded as if Mr. Boyett felt there is a contradiction between being made in the image of God and being formed from the dust of the ground. However, some feedback from a friend indicated he didn't think Mr. Boyett found that the contradiction as much as Genesis 1 speaking about humans being created as a pair in contrast to chapter 2 which indicates they were created separately.

If the claimed contradiction is as I understood it, that there were first humans “in God’s image” (thus implying they lived in heaven as spirit creatures) and the second was from the dust the ground, please note that first Genesis 1:27 says God created humans in his image and then he directs that they “fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving on the earth.” Then he says that the vegetation of the earth would serve as food. (vss.27-29). So chapter one definitely points to an earthly existence, not a heavenly one. What then of the phrase “in God’s image”? The word “image” can also be understood to refer to higher character traits not associated with other physical life on earth such as love, wisdom, and our ability to govern. The point, in context, is that humans were considered something different, something better, than animals. Chapter two continues on the thought of physical, earthly human creation by drawing attention to the fact that, like the rest of life on earth, we are carbon-based creatures made from the elements of this earth.

If however, the perceived contradiction is as my friend heard it, that chapter one seems to indicate that mankind was made as a pair whereas chapter two definitely shows Adam and Eve were created at separate times, then we need come back to what I originally stated about the differences between those two chapters--the first is an overview where each creative “day” (period of thousands of years) is addressed individually as major accomplishments; whereas chapter two concentrates its details on the sequence of humankind’s creation. (I can understand that many would be confused with the sequence of Genesis 2:4-6. For me, the key thought to always keep in mind is we should always vindicate God as the truth-teller, not ourselves.)

The Zohar Is Not In the Bible: There also mention (27:24) of “Biblical tradition… Adam’s first wife, Lilith.” But this is not a text even located in the Bible. It is referring to the Zohar, which is nothing more than Jewish fables. The video calls the Zohar “Jewish texts” and tries to link them to scripture. That is like comparing the writings of Doctor Seuss to history books. At 30:38, Mr. Kirsch is back at his shenanigans claiming that modern, liberated Bible-reading women can relate to Lilith. Really? That’s interesting, because the use of the word "Lilith" in the Bible is not directly related to humans, male or female. And there is absolutely no mention of that word in the Genesis account of creation.

The Four Rivers: Starting at 35:00 through 37:30, quoting the video, “the Bible says that they [the four rivers mentioned in Genesis] met at their source, but Juris Zarins believes they met at their base.” Mr. Zarins found two “fossil rivers” that extend from the Persian Gulf and concludes that this marks the location of paradise. Yes, this man is an archaeologist. But no, just discovering two, now non-existent, rivers at the base of the Persian Gulf doesn't prove we have found the location of the garden of Eden. If fact, since the Bible says that all four rivers “issue” (started at) the garden, the discovery of fossil rivers cannot be it. (Now, is it possible that where the Persian Gulf is today, there was once a mountain, therefore being the point of issuance instead of the point of termination? There is old saying, “Speculation yields frustration.” The fact is, knowing the location of the garden of Eden is not at all important to our current relationship with God. Our knowing and obeying Jesus, on the other hand, is absolutely vital for our lives.)

Faith Is Not The Possession Of All People: Before this video was made, I would not doubt that many 19th, 20th, and 21st century youth and adults would have said that the whole Genesis account is complete fiction. Now, science believes they may have found the location of Eden. Science has always shown itself to be adversarial toward the Bible except when they get archaeological finds shoved down their throats proving how wrong their claims against the Bible are. Then they eat humble pie and are amazed how accurate the accounts in the Bible are. Does this move the majority of people to take a second look? No. Did this video encourage or detract from the Bible? It very cleverly detracted, claiming the Bible is nothing more than plagiarized fables. (It really is laughable that this video claims to identify the location of Eden and then still feels the Bible is fable.)

In defense of Genesis.

How We Got Here And Why It Matters

The ongoing debate between evolutionists and those believing that God created the material universe and life (intelligent and otherwise) is an interesting one. Why? Well, if we choose to believe in creation then we are obliged to ask ourselves what purpose we serve. That is to say, “Why did God make us? What responsibility do we have toward God?" After all, when we make something, don’t we expect it to fulfill the reasons/needs we intended?

On the other hand, if evolution is what you choose to believe, then I’d like to ask you: Why worry about corruption in politics, sadistic evil-minded individuals, terrorist violence, and so many other problems on earth? After all, if we are nothing more than mere animals, then such social ills are really not problems at all--we are merely acting like the animals evolution claims we are.

But coming back to those believing God made us. I know that some believe that as true fact but then feel that afterward, God left us to our own devices. The scriptures linked here demonstrate that is completely untrue. More info here.

In either case, we all need to take our convictions “down the road a bit” and see how its logic works out. Merely believing something and not realizing the inferences and consequences, can hit a person like a head-on collision.

Structure In Universe

Take a look at this image. At first impression, you may think you are looking at the brain’s neurological network. In reality, it is a theoretical model of the fabric of, “the structure of, the universe.” The chaos that was once thought to be the disorganized universe has recently been discovered to be a highly organized structure. Additionally, in this simulation, science attempts to demonstrate the gauze-like features of the universe.  

To me, that is significant because of what is stated in Isaiah 40:22: “There is One who dwells above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers. He is stretching out the heavens like a fine gauze, and he spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.” Granted, there is a distinct possibility that what was being written about here was earth’s atmosphere (in particular clouds), and not a commentary on the design of the universe. Still, I was struck by the similarity. If nothing else, the “structure” indicates intelligent design. There is no way that Isaiah could have had that knowledge on his own, which means he was told about it. That is partially what one Bible writer meant when he wrote: “For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were moved by holy spirit.” (2 Peter 1:21)

(I just finished watching a BBC science show explaining the new understanding on the structure of the universe. I tried to find a YouTube video of that episode but couldn't find it. In it, they refer to the “intelligent design” in the universe. Although they completely avoid the implication that intelligence is a possession of a cognizant being (God, in this case), the whole program really drives home what those appreciating the Bible have always known.)

The Bible, Fact Or Fiction?

Index of Blog Articles

Recently an anonymous commenter wrote that the whole set of my articles were nicely written “stories.” He (or maybe she) went on to explain that just as in the movie “Life of Pi” (the commenter misspelled it “pie”), it all depends on what the audience wants to believe. The commenter thus implied that truth is whatever one chooses to believe. I’ve already written an article addressing the relativity of “truth,” so herein I wanted to address the accusation that the Bible merely contains unprovable stories. One thing that separates fact from fiction is that facts can be proven.

Archeology has several times come to the defense of the Bible. People, places and events have been corroborated. With this proof alone, reasoning people can easily see that the Bible is more akin to a history book than it is a child’s fable.

Scientists have also come forward in favor of the Bible. For instance consider this personal experience of a  man whose study is neurophysiology. Raised an atheist, it was his own studies that convinced him the Bible was more than meets the eye. Also, here are two articles from biochemists, one a man the other a woman, who started out as atheist but changed by reason of their field of study. Yet another article is about a designer of robots that gained an appreciation that God truly exists.

The brochure “Was Life Created” may be of interest to some of you.

Other real-life experiences from the sciences and medical fields:
Nuclear Physicist (Apr.2004 Awake article)
Orthopedic Surgeon (Aug.2013 Awake article)
Kidney researcher (Sept.2013 Awake article)

Index of Blog Articles

Perfection And Creation

Index of Blog Articles

When I first started to consider this question, I thought to myself: “Oh, this is an easy-to-answer question--a couple scriptures and boom, it’s done.” Then I started to consider all the nuances that this issue has taken on in the form of honest questions. Here are two of them:

• If Adam was perfect, how could he sin? (The assumption here is that “perfect” implies that such a person would be incapable of doing wrong.)

• Since the scriptures teach that everything God does is perfect, why then do we accept the death of animals as normal but view death of humans as abnormal? (There are at least two things I can think of that need to be addressed here: 1) Does being perfect imply eternal existence? 2) Does God’s intentions and promises toward us differ from other life forms?)

For this first installment, I am going to start with the definition of perfect as used not only in Scripture, but also in common daily speech. Dictionary.com offers five definitions for the word. Given the context of any particular verse, most of those would fit one or more ways that Scripture uses the term. The following short list of synonyms links to specific verses that use the word perfect: flawless, indiscriminate, impeccable, fully capable, complete, matchless & uncompromised, without obstacles, able to get at the heart of matters.

For the most part, the concise definition I’ve settled on is that "perfect" means that which is completely suited for the intended purpose. One point that seems to be missed by some I speak with is that there is room for planned obsolescence within the definition of what “perfect” is. In the linked article, it states that manufacturers can and do actually design products to have a specific “life-duration.” We may not like it, but it is there. So, if your cell phone lasts around four years, as far as the industry is concerned, it outlived it’s life. (I participate in one online forum regarding cellphones and read several online industry website articles about the technology. Based on the numbers, it seems most people keep a particular make/model of phone for an average of 18 to 24 months. The market-life is even shorter. 2nd reference.)

So those that argue that “perfect” does not necessarily mean everlasting--you are right. But that is not all there is to the subject when considering what God’s Word, The Bible, says about humans. If you are interested, continue reading Parts 2 & 3.

Part 2: If Adam Was Perfect, How Could He Sin?
Part 3: Was Adam Perfect and Does That Mean He Would Have Lived Forever?


Index of Blog Articles