Job 38:29“Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it?”
‘In previous Creation Moments programs we have told you about frogs that produce antifreeze in the winter. But the Wood Frog is the absolute champion at surviving below-freezing temperatures.
Most frogs that survive northern winters cannot withstand more than a few degrees below freezing before they begin to suffer cell damage. Researchers placed Wood Frogs into an industrial freezer where they became stiff and hard on the outside, and partially liquid on the inside. The frogs’ metabolism stopped, and they became brain-dead. When they were thawed out, however, they returned to life as if nothing had ever happened. Wood Frogs avoid cell damage caused by the formation of ice crystals by generating glucose – a highly effective antifreeze. Other species of frogs produce glycerol, a less-effective type of antifreeze. However, the levels of glucose generated by the Wood Frog would cause cell damage in most other frogs, but these frogs limit the damage by shutting off their metabolism. What’s more, should the Wood Frog suffer any cell damage by ice crystal formation, its blood contains a special fibrinogen that seals any leaks in its cell walls.
‘Of all the sciences, the Holy Bible has more to say about astronomy than any other. The Scripture speaks of the sun, moon, stars, the host of heaven, planets, and constellations. It talks about the heavens, the firmament, and tells us that the lights in the sky were made for the earth, for man, to give light by day and by night, to serve as signs, and to determine the seasons. The ancients, particularly the Jews, claim Adam as the first astronomer. They number Seth, Enoch, Shem, and Abraham among the greatest ancient astronomers. Major astronomical themes occur in Genesis, Numbers, Joshua, Judges, Job, Psalms, Amos, Luke, Hebrews, 1 & 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation.’ http://www.geocentricity.com/
‘IN presenting John Jasper’s celebrated sermon on “De Sun Do Move, “I beg to introduce it with several explanatory words. As intimated in a former chapter it is of a dual character. It includes an extended discussion, after his peculiar fashion, of the text, “The Lord God is a man of war; the Lord is His name.” Much that he said in that part of his sermon is omitted, only so much being retained as indicates his view of the rotation of the sun. It was really when he came into this part of his sermon that he showed to such great advantage, even though so manifestly in error as to the position which he tried so manfully to antagonize. It was of that combative type of public speech which always put him before the people at his best. I never heard this sermon but once, but I have been amply aided in reproducing it by an elaborate and altogether friendly report of the sermon published at the time by The Richmond Dispatch. Jasper opened his discourse with a tender reminiscence and quite an ingenious exordium.
“Low me ter say,” he spoke with an outward composure which revealed an inward but mastered swell of emotion, “dat when I wuz a young man and a slave, I knowed nuthin’ wuth talkin’ ’bout consarnin’ books. Dey wuz sealed mysteries ter me, but I tell yer I longed ter break de seal. I thusted fer de bread uv learnin’. When I seen books I ached ter git in ter um, fur I knowed dat dey had de stuff fer me, an’ I wanted ter taste dere contents, but most of de time dey wuz bar’d aginst me.
“By de mursy of de Lord a thing happened. I got er room-feller–he wuz a slave, too, an’ he had learn’d ter read. In de dead uv de night he giv me lessons outen de New York Spellin’ book. It wuz hard pullin’, I tell yer; harder on him, fur he know’d jes’ a leetle, an’ it made him sweat ter try ter beat sumthin’ inter my hard haid. It wuz wuss wid me. Up de hill ev’ry step, but when I got de light uv de less’n into my noodle I farly shouted, but I kno’d I wuz not a scholur. De consequens wuz I crep ‘long mighty tejus, gittin’ a crum here an’ dar untel I cud read de Bible by skippin’ de long words, tolerable well. Dat wuz de start uv my eddicashun–dat is, wat little I got. I mek menshun uv dat young man. De years hev fled erway sense den, but I ain’t furgot my teachur, an’ nevur shall. I thank mer Lord fur him, an’ I carries his mem’ry in my heart.
” ‘Bout seben months after my gittin’ ter readin’, Gord cunverted my soul, an’ I reckin ’bout de fust an’ main thing dat I begged de Lord ter give me wuz de power ter und’stan’ His Word. I ain’ braggin’, an’ I hates self-praise, but I boun’ ter speak de thankful word. I b’lieves in mer heart dat mer pra’r ter und’stand de Scripshur wuz heard. Sence dat time I ain’t keerd ’bout nuthin’ ‘cept ter study an’ preach de Word uv God.
“Not, my bruthrin, dat I’z de fool ter think I knows it all. Oh, mer Father, no! Fur frum it. I don’ hardly und’stan myse’f, nor ha’f uv de things roun’ me, an’ dar is milyuns uv things in de Bible too deep fur Jasper, an’ sum uv ’em too deep fur ev’rybody. I doan’t cerry de’ keys ter de Lord’s closet, an’ He ain’ tell me ter peep in, an’ ef I did I’m so stupid I wouldn’t know it when I see it. No, frens, I knows my place at de feet uv my Marster, an’ dar I stays.
“But I kin read de Bible and git de things whar lay on de top uv de soil. Out’n de Bible I knows nuthin’ extry ’bout de sun. I sees ‘is courses as he rides up dar so gran’ an’ mighty in de sky, but dar is heaps ’bout dat flamin’ orb dat is too much fer me. I know dat de sun shines powerfly an’ po’s down its light in floods, an’ yet dat is nuthin’ compared wid de light dat flashes in my min’ frum de pages of Gord’s book. But you knows all dat. I knows dat de sun burns–oh, how it did burn in dem July days. I tell yer he cooked de skin on my back many er day when I wuz hoein’ in de corn feil’. But you knows all dat, an’ yet dat is nuthin’ der to de divine fire dat burns in der souls uv Gord’s chil’n. Can’t yer feel it, bruthrin?
“But ’bout de courses uv de sun, I have got dat. I hev dun rang’d thru de whole blessed book an’ scode down de las’ thing de Bible has ter say ’bout de’ movements uv de sun. I got all dat pat an’ safe. An’ lemme say dat if I doan’t giv it ter you straight, if I gits one word crooked or wrong, you jes’ holler out, ‘Hol’ on dar, Jasper, yer ain’t got dat straight,’ an’ I’ll beg pardon. If I doan’t tell de truf, march up on dese steps here an’ tell me I’z a liar, an’ I’ll take it. I fears I do lie sometimes–I’m so sinful, I find it hard ter do right; but my Gord doan’t lie an’ He ain’ put no lie in de Book uv eternal truf, an’ if I giv you wat de Bible say, den I boun’ ter tell de truf.
“I got ter take yer all dis arternoon on er skershun ter a great bat’l feil’. Mos’ folks like ter see fights–some is mighty fon’ er gittin’ inter fights, an’ some is mighty quick ter run down de back alley when dar is a bat’l goin’ on, fer de right. Dis time I’ll ‘scort yer ter a scene whar you shall witness a curus bat’l. It tuk place soon arter Isrel got in de Promus Lan’. Yer ‘member de people uv Gibyun mak frens wid Gord’s people when dey fust entered Canum an’ dey wuz monsus smart ter do it. But, jes’ de same, it got ’em in ter an orful fuss. De cities roun’ ’bout dar flar’d up at dat, an’ dey all jined dere forces and say dey gwine ter mop de Gibyun people orf uv de groun’, an’ dey bunched all dar armies tergedder an’ went up fer ter do it. Wen dey kum up so bol’ an’ brave de Giby’nites wuz skeer’d out’n dere senses, an’ dey saunt word ter Joshwer dat dey wuz in troubl’ an’ he mus’ run up dar an’ git ’em out. Joshwer had de heart uv a lion an’ he wuz up dar d’reckly. Dey had an orful fight, sharp an’ bitter, but yer might know dat Ginr’l Joshwer wuz not up dar ter git whip’t. He prayed an’ he fought, an’ de hours got erway too peart fer him, an’ so he ask’d de Lord ter issure a speshul ordur dat de sun hol’ up erwhile an’ dat de moon furnish plenty uv moonshine down on de lowes’ part uv de fightin’ groun’s. As a fac’, Joshwer wuz so drunk wid de bat’l, so thursty fer de blood uv de en’mies uv de Lord, an’ so wild wid de vict’ry dat he tell de sun ter stan’ still tel he cud finish his job. Wat did de sun do? Did he glar down in fi’ry wrath an’ say, ‘What you talkin’ ’bout my stoppin’ for, Joshwer; I ain’t navur startid yit. Bin here all de time, an’ it wud smash up ev’rything if I wuz ter start’? Naw, he ain’ say dat. But wat de Bible say? Dat’s wat I ax ter know. It say dat it wuz at de voice uv Joshwer dat it stopped. I don’ say it stopt; tain’t fer Jasper ter say dat, but de Bible, de Book uv Gord, say so. But I say dis; nuthin’ kin stop untel it hez fust startid. So I knows wat I’m talkin’ ’bout. De sun wuz travlin’ long dar thru de sky wen de order come. He hitched his red ponies and made quite a call on de lan’ uv Gibyun. He purch up dar in de skies jes’ as frenly as a naibur whar comes ter borrer sumthin’, an’ he stan’ up dar an’ he look lak he enjoyed de way Joshwer waxes dem wicked armies. An’ de moon, she wait down in de low groun’s dar, an’ pours out her light and look jes’ as ca’m an’ happy as if she wuz waitin’ fer her ‘scort. Dey nevur budg’d, neither uv ’em, long as de Lord’s army needed er light to kerry on de bat’l.
“I doan’t read when it wuz dat Joshwer hitch up an’ drove on, but I ‘spose it wuz when de Lord toll him ter go. Ennybody knows dat de sun didn’ stay dar all de time. It stopt fur bizniz, an’ went on when it got thru. Dis is ’bout all dat I has ter do wid dis perticl’r case. I dun show’d yer dat dis part uv de Lord’s word teaches yer dat de sun stopt, which show dat he wuz movin’ befo’ dat, an’ dat he went on art’rwuds. I toll yer dat I wud prove dis an’ I’s dun it, an’ I derfies ennybody to say dat my p’int ain’t made.
“I tol’ yer in de fust part uv dis discose dat de Lord Gord is a man uv war. I ‘spec by now yer begin ter see it is so. Doan’t yer admit it?
When de Lord cum ter see Joshwer in de day uv his feers an’ warfar, an’ actu’ly mek de sun stop stone still in de heavuns, so de fight kin rage on tel all de foes is slain, yer bleeged ter und’rstan’ dat de Gord uv peace is also de man uv war. He kin use bofe peace an’ war ter hep de reichus, an’ ter scattur de host uv de ailyuns. A man talked ter me las’ week ’bout de laws uv nature, an’ he say dey carn’t poss’bly be upsot, an’ I had ter laugh right in his face. As if de laws uv ennythin’ wuz greater dan my Gord who is de lawgiver fer ev’rything. My Lord is great; He rules in de heavuns, in de earth, an’ doun und’r de groun’. He is great, an’ greatly ter be praised. Let all de people bow doun an’ wurship befo’ Him!
“But let us git erlong, for dar is quite a big lot mo’ comin’ on. Let us take nex’ de case of Hezekier. He wuz one of dem kings of Juder–er mighty sorry lot I mus’ say dem kings wuz, fur de mos’ part. I inclines ter think Hezekier wuz ’bout de highes’ in de gin’ral avrig, an’ he war no mighty man hisse’f. Well, Hezekier he got sick. I dar say dat a king when he gits his crown an’ fin’ry off, an’ when he is posterated wid mortal sickness, he gits ’bout es commun lookin’ an’ grunts an’ rolls, an’ is ’bout es skeery as de res’ of us po’ mortals. We know dat Hezekier wuz in er low state uv min’; full uv fears, an’ in a tur’ble trub’le. De fac’ is, de Lord strip him uv all his glory an’ landed him in de dust. He tol’ him dat his hour had come, an’ dat he had bettur squar up his affaars, fur death wuz at de do’. Den it wuz dat de king fell low befo’ Gord; he turn his face ter de wall; he cry, he moan, he beg’d de Lord not ter take him out’n de worl’ yit. Oh, how good is our Gord! De cry uv de king moved his heart, an’ he tell him he gwine ter give him anudder show. Tain’t only de kings dat de Lord hears. De cry uv de pris’nur, de wail uv de bondsman, de tears uv de dyin’ robber, de prars uv de backslider, de sobs uv de womun dat wuz a sinner, mighty apt to tech de heart uv de Lord. It look lik it’s hard fer de sinner ter git so fur orf or so fur down in de pit dat his cry can’t reach de yere uv de mussiful Saviour.
“But de Lord do evun better den dis fur Hezekier–He tell him He gwine ter give him a sign by which he’d know dat what He sed wuz cummin’ ter pars. I ain’t erquainted wid dem sun diuls dat de Lord toll Hezekier ’bout, but ennybody dat hes got a grain uv sense knows dat dey wuz de clocks uv dem ole times an’ dey marked de travuls uv de sun by dem diuls. When, darfo’ Gord tol’ de king dat He wud mek de shadder go backwud, it mus’ hev bin jes’ lak puttin’ de han’s uv de clock back, but, mark yer, Izaer ‘spressly say dat de sun return’d ten dergrees. Thar yer are! Ain’t dat de movement uv de sun? Bless my soul. Hezekier’s case beat Joshwer. Joshwer stop de sun, but heer de Lord mek de sun walk back ten dergrees; an’ yet dey say dat de sun stan’ stone still an’ nevur move er peg. It look ter me he move roun’ mighty brisk an’ is ready ter go ennyway dat de Lord ordurs him ter go. I wonder if enny uv dem furloserfers is roun’ here dis arternoon. I’d lik ter take a squar’ look at one uv dem an’ ax him to ‘splain dis mattur. He carn’t do it, my bruthr’n. He knows a heap ’bout books, maps, figgers an’ long distunces, but I derfy him ter take up Hezekier’s case an’ ‘splain it orf. He carn’t do’ it. De Word uv de Lord is my defense an’ bulwurk, an’ I fears not what men can say nor do; my Gord gives me de vict’ry.
” ‘Low me, my frens, ter put mysef squar ’bout dis movement uv de sun. It ain’t no bizniss uv mine wedder de sun move or stan’ still, or wedder it stop or go back or rise or set. All dat is out er my han’s ‘tirely, an’ I got nuthin’ ter say. I got no the-o-ry on de subjik. All I ax is dat we will take wat de Lord say ’bout it an’ let His will be dun ’bout ev’rything. Wat dat will is I karn’t know ‘cept He whisper inter my soul or write it in a book. Here’s de Book. Dis is ‘nough fer me, and wid it ter pilut me, I karn’t git fur erstray.
“But I ain’t dun wid yer yit. As de song says, dere’s mo’ ter foller. I envite yer ter heer de fust vers in de sev’nth chaptur uv de book uv Reverlashuns. What do John, und’r de pow’r uv de Spirit, say? He say he saw fo’ anguls standin’ on de fo’ corners uv de earth, holdin’ de fo’ win’s uv de earth, an’ so fo’th. ‘Low me ter ax ef de earth is roun’, whar do it keep its corners? Er flat, squar thing has corners, but tell me where is de cornur uv er appul, ur a marbul, ur a cannun ball, ur a silver dollar. Ef dar is enny one uv dem furloserfurs whar’s been takin’ so many cracks at my ole haid ’bout here, he is korjully envited ter step for’d an’ squar up dis vexin’ bizniss. I here tell you dat yer karn’t squar a circul, but it looks lak dese great scolurs dun learn how ter circul de squar. Ef dey kin do it, let ’em step ter de front an’ do de trick. But, mer brutherin, in my po’ judmint, dey karn’t do it; tain’t in ’em ter do it. Dey is on der wrong side of de Bible; dat’s on de outside of de Bible, an’ dar’s whar de trubbul comes in wid ’em. Dey dun got out uv de bres’wuks uv de truf, an’ ez long ez dey stay dar de light uv de Lord will not shine on der path. I ain’t keer’n so much ’bout de sun, tho’ it’s mighty kunveenyunt ter hav it, but my trus’ is in de Word uv de Lord. Long ez my feet is flat on de solid rock, no man kin move me. I’se gittin’ my order f’um de Gord of my salvashun.
“Tother day er man wid er hi coler and side whisk’rs cum ter my house. He was one nice North’rn gemman wat think a heap of us col’rd people in de Souf. Da ar luvly folks and I honours ’em very much. He seem from de start kinder strictly an’ cross wid me, and arter while, he brake out furi’us and frettid, an’ he say: ‘Erlow me Mister Jasper ter gib you sum plain advise. Dis nonsans ’bout de sun movin’ whar you ar gettin’ is disgracin’ yer race all ober de kuntry, an’ as a fren of yer peopul, I cum ter say it’s got ter stop.’ Ha! Ha! Ha! Mars’ Sam Hargrove nuvur hardly smash me dat way. It was equl to one ov dem ole overseurs way bac yondur. I tel him dat ef he’ll sho me I’se wrong, I giv it all up.
“My! My! Ha! Ha! He sail in on me an’ such er storm about science, nu ‘scuv’ries, an’ de Lord only knos wat all, I ner hur befo’, an’ den he tel me my race is ergin me an’ po ole Jasper mus shet up ‘is fule mouf.
“Wen he got thru–it look lak he nuvur wud, I tel him John Jasper ain’ set up to be no scholur, an’ doant kno de ferlosophiz, an’ ain’ tryin’ ter hurt his peopul, but is wurkin’ day an’ night ter lif ’em up, but his foot is on de rock uv eternal truff. Dar he stan’ and dar he is goin’ ter stan’ til Gabrul soun’s de judgment note. So er say to de gemman wat scol’d me up so dat I hur him mek his remarks, but I ain’ hur whar he get his Scriptu’ from, an’ dat ‘tween him an’ de wurd of de Lord I tek my stan’ by de Word of Gord ebery time. Jasper ain’ mad: he ain’ fightin’ nobody; he ain’ bin ‘pinted janitur to run de sun: he nothin’ but de servunt of Gord and a luver of de Everlasting Word. What I keer about de sun? De day comes on wen de sun will be called frum his race-trac, and his light squincked out foruvur; de moon shall turn ter blood, and this yearth be konsoomed wid fier. Let um go; dat wont skeer me nor trubble Gord’s erlect’d peopul, for de word uv de Lord shell aindu furivur, an’ on dat Solid Rock we stan’ an’ shall not be muved.
“Is I got yer satisfied yit? Has I prooven my p’int? Oh, ye whose hearts is full uv unberlief! Is yer still hol’in’ out? I reckun de reason yer say de sun don’ move is ’cause yer are so hard ter move yerse’f. You is a reel triul ter me, but, nevur min’; I ain’t gi’n yer up yit, an’ nevur will. Truf is mighty; it kin break de heart uv stone, an’ I mus’ fire anudder arrur uv truf out’n de quivur uv de Lord. If yer haz er copy uv God’s Word ’bout yer pussun, please tu’n ter dat miner profit, Malerki, wat writ der las’ book in der ole Bible, an’ look at chaptur de fust, vurs ‘leben; what do it say? I bet’r read it, fur I got er noshun yer critics doan’t kerry enny Bible in thar pockits ev’ry day in de week. Here is wat it says: ‘Fur from de risin’ uv de sun evun unter de goin’ doun uv de same My name shall be great ‘mong de Gentiles. . . My name shall be great ‘mong de heathun, sez de Lord uv hosts.’ How do dat suit yer? It look lak dat ort ter fix it. Dis time it is de Lord uv hosts Hisse’f dat is doin’ de talkin’, an’ He is talkin’ on er wonderful an’ glorious subjik. He is tellin’ uv de spredin’ uv His Gorspel, uv de kummin’ uv His larst vict’ry ovur de Gentiles, an’ de wurldwide glories dat at de las’ He is ter git. Oh, my bruddrin, wat er time dat will be. My soul teks wing es I erticipate wid joy dat merlenium day! De glories as dey shine befo’ my eyes blin’s me, an’ I furgits de sun an’ moon an’ stars. I jes’ ‘members dat ‘long ’bout dose las’ days dat de sun an moon will go out uv bizniss, fur dey won’ be needed no mo’. Den will King Jesus come back ter see His people, an’ He will be de suffishunt light uv de wurl’. Joshwer’s bat’ls will be ovur. Hezekier woan’t need no sun diul, an’ de sun an’ moon will fade out befo’ de glorius splendurs uv de New Jerruslem.
“But wat der mattur wid Jasper. I mos’ furgit my bizniss, an’ mos’ gon’ ter shoutin’ ovur de far away glories uv de secun’ cummin’ uv my Lord. I beg pardun, an’ will try ter git back ter my subjik. I hev ter do as de sun in Hezekier’s case–fall back er few dergrees. In dat part uv de Word dat I gin yer frum Malerki–dat de Lord Hisse’f spoke–He klars dat His glory is gwine ter spred. Spred? Whar? Frum de risin’ uv de sun ter de goin’ down uv de same. Wat? Doan’t say dat, duz it? Dat’s edzakly wat it sez. Ain’t dat cleer ’nuff fer yer? De Lord pity dese doubtin’ Tommusses. Here is ’nuff ter settul it all an’ kure de wuss cases. Walk up yere, wise folks, an’ git yer med’sin. Whar is dem high collar’d furloserfurs now? Wat dey skulkin’ roun’ in de brush fer? Why doan’t yer git out in der broad arternoon light an’ fight fer yer cullurs? Ah, I un’stans it; yer got no answer. De Bible is agin yer, an’ in yer konshunses yer are convictid.
“But I hears yer back dar. Wat yer wisprin’ ’bout? I know; yer say yer sont me sum papurs an’ I nevur answer dem. Ha, ha, ha! I got ’em. De differkulty ’bout dem papurs yer sont me is dat dey did not answer me. Dey nevur menshun de Bible one time. Yer think so much uv yoursef’s an’ so little uv de Lord Gord an’ thinks wat yer say is so smart dat yer karn’t even speak uv de Word uv de Lord. When yer ax me ter stop believin’ in de Lord’s Word an’ ter pin my faith ter yo words, I ain’t er gwine ter do it. I take my stan’ by de Bible an’ res’ my case on wat it says. I take wat de Lord says ’bout my sins, ’bout my Saviour, ’bout life, ’bout death, ’bout de wurl’ ter come, an’ I take wat de Lord say ’bout de sun an’ moon, an’ I cares little wat de haters of mer Gord chooses ter say. Think dat I will fursake de Bible? It is my only Book, my hope, de arsnel uv my soul’s surplies, an’ I wants nuthin’ else.
“But I got ernudder wurd fur yer yit. I done wuk ovur dem. papurs dat yer sont me widout date an’ widout yer name. Yer deals in figgurs an’ thinks yer are biggur dan de arkanjuls. Lemme see wat yer dun say. Yer set yerse’f up ter tell me how fur it is frum here ter de sun. Yer think yer got it down ter er nice p’int. Yer say it is 3,339,002 miles frum de earth ter de sun. Dat’s wat yer say. Nudder one say dat de distuns is 12,000,000; nudder got it ter 27,000,000. I hers dat de great Isuk Nutun wuk’t it up ter 28,000,000, an’ later on de furloserfurs gin ernudder rippin’ raze to 50,000,000. De las’ one gits it bigger’ dan all de yuthers, up to 90,000,000. Doan’t enny uv ’em ergree edzakly an’ so dey runs a guess game, an’ de las’ guess is always de bigges’. Now, wen dese guessers kin hav a kunvenshun in Richmun’ an’ all ergree ‘pun de same thing, I’d be glad ter hear frum yer ag’in, an’ I duz hope dat by dat time yer won’t be ershamed uv yer name.
“Heeps uv railroads hes bin built sense I saw de fust one wen I wuz fifteen yeers ole, but I ain’t hear tell uv er railroad built yit ter de sun. I doan’ see why ef dey kin meshur de distuns ter de sun, dey might not git up er railroad er a telurgraf an’ enabul us ter fin’ sumthin’ else ’bout it den merely how fur orf de sun is. Dey tell me dat a kannun ball cu’d mek de trep ter de sun in twelve years. Why doan’dey send it? It might be rig’d up wid quarturs fur a few furloserfers on de inside an’ fixed up fur er kumfurterble ride. Dey wud need twelve years’ rashuns an’ a heep uv changes uv ramint–mighty thick clo’es wen dey start and mighty thin uns wen dey git dar.
“Oh, mer bruthrin, dese things mek yer laugh, an’ I doan’ blem yer fer laughin’, ‘cept it’s always sad ter laugh at der follies uv fools. If we cu’d laugh ’em out’n kount’nens, we might well laugh day an’ night. Wat cuts inter my soul is, dat all dese men seem ter me dat dey is hittin’ at de Bible. Dat’s wat sturs my soul an’ fills me wid reichus wrath. Leetle keers I wat dey says ’bout de sun, purvided dey let de Word uv de Lord erlone. But nevur min’. Let de heethun rage an’ de people ‘madgin er vain thing. Our King shall break ’em in pieces an’ dash ’em down. But blessed be de name uv our Gord, de Word uv de Lord indurith furivur. Stars may fall, moons may turn ter blood, an’ de sun set ter rise no mo’, but Thy kingdom, oh, Lord, is frum evurlastin’ ter evurlastin’.
“But I has er word dis arternoon fer my own brutherin. Dey is de people fer whose souls I got ter watch–fur dem I got ter stan’ an’ report at de last–dey is my sheep an’ I’se der shepherd, an’ my soul is knit ter dem forever. ‘Tain fer me ter be troublin’ yer wid dese questions erbout dem heb’nly bodies. Our eyes goes far beyon’ desmaller stars; our home is clean outer sight uv dem twinklin’ orbs; de chariot dat will cum ter take us to our Father’s mansion will sweep out by dem flickerin’ lights an’ never halt till it brings us in clar view uv de throne uv de Lamb. Doan’t hitch yer hopes to no sun nor stars; yer home is got Jesus fer its light, an’ yer hopes mus’ trabel up dat way. I preach dis sermon jest fer ter settle de min’s uv my few brutherin, an’ repeats it ’cause kin’ frens wish ter hear it, an’ I hopes it will do honour ter de Lord’s Word. But nuthin’ short of de purly gates can satisfy me, an’ I charge, my people, fix yer feet on de solid Rock, yer hearts on Calv’ry, an’ yer eyes on de throne uv de Lamb. Dese strifes an’ griefs ‘ll soon git ober; we shall see de King in His glory an’ be at ease. Go on, go on, ye ransom uv de Lord; shout His praises as yer go, an’ I shall meet yer in de city uv de New Jeruserlum, whar we shan’t need the light uv de sun, fer de Lam’ uv de Lord is de light uv de saints.”‘ https://docsouth.unc.edu/church/hatcher/hatcher.html
Australia’s Sky News’ Outsiders television programme is on Sunday mornings while we are in the Lord’s House so we video it to watch later in the day or the next. One of those Outsiders have interviewed is Michael Shellenberger. Shellenberger wrote an article that appeared in Forbes but was quickly deleted as the PC culture is quick to act on information they want to keep from you. It is easy to see ‘The debate on climate is conducted in a climate of fear coming from the bullying guardians of orthodoxy.’ https://climatediscussionnexus.com/2020/07/01/this-just-out/
However, here is that article in full.
‘On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem.
I may seem like a strange person to be saying all of this. I have been a climate activist for 20 years and an environmentalist for 30.
But as an energy expert asked by Congress to provide objective expert testimony, and invited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to serve as Expert Reviewer of its next Assessment Report, I feel an obligation to apologize for how badly we environmentalists have misled the public.
Here are some facts few people know:
Humans are not causing a “sixth mass extinction”
The Amazon is not “the lungs of the world”
Climate change is not making natural disasters worse
Fires have declined 25% around the world since 2003
The amount of land we use for meat — humankind’s biggest use of land — has declinedby an area nearly as large as Alaska
The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and California
Carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations and have been declining in Britain, Germany, and France since the mid-1970s
Netherlands became rich not poor while adapting to life below sea level
We produce 25% more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter
Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change
Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels
Preventing future pandemics requires more not less “industrial” agriculture
I know that the above facts will sound like “climate denialism” to many people. But that just shows the power of climate alarmism.
In reality, the above facts come from the best-available scientific studies, including those conducted by or accepted by the IPCC, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and other leading scientific bodies.
Some people will, when they read this imagine that I’m some right-wing anti-environmentalist. I’m not. At 17, I lived in Nicaragua to show solidarity with the Sandinista socialist revolution. At 23 I raised money for Guatemalan women’s cooperatives. In my early 20s I lived in the semi-Amazon doing research with small farmers fighting land invasions. At 26 I helped expose poor conditions at Nike factories in Asia.
I became an environmentalist at 16 when I threw a fundraiser for Rainforest Action Network. At 27 I helped save the last unprotected ancient redwoods in California. In my 30s I advocated renewables and successfully helped persuade the Obama administration to invest $90 billion into them. Over the last few years I helped save enough nuclear plants from being replaced by fossil fuels to prevent a sharp increase in emissions
But until last year, I mostly avoided speaking out against the climate scare. Partly that’s because I was embarrassed. After all, I am as guilty of alarmism as any other environmentalist. For years, I referred to climate change as an “existential” threat to human civilization, and called it a “crisis.”
But mostly I was scared. I remained quiet about the climate disinformation campaign because I was afraid of losing friends and funding. The few times I summoned the courage to defend climate science from those who misrepresent it I suffered harsh consequences. And so I mostly stood by and did next to nothing as my fellow environmentalists terrified the public.
I even stood by as people in the White House and many in the news media tried to destroy the reputation and career of an outstanding scientist, good man, and friend of mine, Roger Pielke, Jr., a lifelong progressive Democrat and environmentalist who testified in favor of carbon regulations. Why did they do that? Because his research proves natural disasters aren’t getting worse.
But then, last year, things spiraled out of control.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said “The world is going to end in twelve years if we don’t address climate change.” Britain’s most high-profile environmental group claimed “Climate Change Kills Children.”
The world’s most influential green journalist, Bill McKibben, called climate change the “greatest challenge humans have ever faced” and said it would “wipe out civilizations.”
Mainstream journalists reported, repeatedly, that the Amazon was “the lungs of the world,” and that deforestation was like a nuclear bomb going off.
As a result, half of the people surveyed around the world last year said they thought climate change would make humanity extinct. And in January, one out of five British children told pollsters they were having nightmares about climate change.
Whether or not you have children you must see how wrong this is. I admit I may be sensitive because I have a teenage daughter. After we talked about the science she was reassured. But her friends are deeply misinformed and thus, understandably, frightened.
I thus decided I had to speak out. I knew that writing a few articles wouldn’t be enough. I needed a book to properly lay out all of the evidence.
It is based on two decades of research and three decades of environmental activism. At 400 pages, with 100 of them endnotes, Apocalypse Never covers climate change, deforestation, plastic waste, species extinction, industrialization, meat, nuclear energy, and renewables.
Some highlights from the book:
Factories and modern farming are the keys to human liberation and environmental progress
The most important thing for saving the environment is producing more food, particularly meat, on less land
The most important thing for reducing air pollution and carbon emissions is moving from wood to coal to petroleum to natural gas to uranium
100% renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5% to 50%
We should want cities, farms, and power plants to have higher, not lower, power densities
Vegetarianism reduces one’s emissions by less than 4%
Greenpeace didn’t save the whales, switching from whale oil to petroleum and palm oil did
“Free-range” beef would require 20 times more land and produce 300% more emissions
Greenpeace dogmatism worsened forest fragmentation of the Amazon
The colonialist approach to gorilla conservation in the Congo produced a backlash that may have resulted in the killing of 250 elephants
Why were we all so misled?
In the final three chapters of Apocalypse Never I expose the financial, political, and ideological motivations. Environmental groups have accepted hundreds of millions of dollars from fossil fuel interests. Groups motivated by anti-humanist beliefs forced the World Bank to stop trying to end poverty and instead make poverty “sustainable.” And status anxiety, depression, and hostility to modern civilization are behind much of the alarmism
Once you realize just how badly misinformed we have been, often by people with plainly unsavory or unhealthy motivations, it is hard not to feel duped.
Will Apocalypse Never make any difference? There are certainly reasons to doubt it.
The news media have been making apocalyptic pronouncements about climate change since the late 1980s, and do not seem disposed to stop.
The ideology behind environmental alarmsim — Malthusianism — has been repeatedly debunked for 200 years and yet is more powerful than ever.
But there are also reasons to believe that environmental alarmism will, if not come to an end, have diminishing cultural power.
The coronavirus pandemic is an actual crisis that puts the climate “crisis” into perspective. Even if you think we have overreacted, Covid-19 has killed nearly 500,000 people and shattered economies around the globe.
Scientific institutions including WHO and IPCC have undermined their credibility through the repeated politicization of science. Their future existence and relevance depends on new leadership and serious reform.
Facts still matter, and social media is allowing for a wider range of new and independent voices to outcompete alarmist environmental journalists at legacy publications.
Nations are reverting openly to self-interest and away from Malthusianism and neoliberalism, which is good for nuclear and bad for renewables.
The evidence is overwhelming that our high-energy civilization is better for people and nature than the low-energy civilization that climate alarmists would return us to.
The invitations from IPCC and Congress are signs of a growing openness to new thinking about climate change and the environment. Another one has been to the response to my book from climate scientists, conservationists, and environmental scholars. “Apocalypse Never is an extremely important book,” writes Richard Rhodes, the Pulitzer-winning author of The Making of the Atomic Bomb. “This may be the most important book on the environment ever written,” says one of the fathers of modern climate science Tom Wigley.
“We environmentalists condemn those with antithetical views of being ignorant of science and susceptible to confirmation bias,” wrote the former head of The Nature Conservancy, Steve McCormick. “But too often we are guilty of the same. Shellenberger offers ‘tough love:’ a challenge to entrenched orthodoxies and rigid, self-defeating mindsets. Apocalypse Never serves up occasionally stinging, but always well-crafted, evidence-based points of view that will help develop the ‘mental muscle’ we need to envision and design not only a hopeful, but an attainable, future.”
That is all I hoped for in writing it. If you’ve made it this far, I hope you’ll agree that it’s perhaps not as strange as it seems that a lifelong environmentalist, progressive, and climate activist felt the need to speak out against the alarmism.
Can one believe the Bible without being a scientist or an ‘expert’ in languages or some other related field? Yes they can. In John 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. I have never seen personally the Lord Jesus but I believe what the Scriptures say.
However, it is good to read about men who are very knowledgeable in certain fields and who have come to faith in the Person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. Brian Thomas is such a man. He writes that ‘A student recently asked what I believe about the age of the earth. I replied that at one time I felt absolutely certain that the world was billions of years old. I even wrote a song that mentioned “the age of dinosaurs.” Now, however, I believe the dinosaurs that got fossilized lived when (but not where) Noah lived. They got locked in rocks through Noah’s Flood only 4,500 or so years ago. Four specific facts helped change my mind.
The change began when a Christian friend challenged me to debunk creation-believing scientists. The information he gave me revealed key facts my college professors and textbooks never noted.
For example, I had never heard that the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens deposited debris partly in layers. Or that in two short years those layers hardened enough to form steep-sided canyon walls. I’d always taken for granted what my teachers told me—forming rock layers needs lots of time. When I learned that instead sedimentary rocks form from lots of water, I started to doubt deep time.
Another fact that raised my eyebrows was the small 1982 eruption that carved a huge gorge through those fresh Mount St. Helens layers and through some lava rock beneath them. I always thought it took millions of years of gradual erosion to excavate canyons one grain at a time. But, just like the new rock layers, this canyon formed in one catastrophic day.
The third fact that shook my faith in Earth’s supposedly great age involved radioisotopes. After Mount St. Helens’ 1980 eruption, smaller lava burps built a dome of rock in the new crater atop the mountain. According to standard thinking, radioisotope “clocks” can reveal the exact time lava hardened. This fresh rock offered a chance to test a common radioisotope dating method.
Scientists who believed in biblical creation—which holds that Earth is only thousands of years old—got permission to collect the lava rocks for testing. They already doubted the millions of years so often pinned to radioisotope counts, but the lab technicians they sent their rock samples to had no such disbelief. The technicians’ radioisotope-based “age” for the one-decade-old rock was half a million years!1 Other tests of historical lava flows with known ages haven’t shown accurate ages either.2
Probably the rock’s molten state never wound the isotopic clocks back to zero like the theory suggests. For the first time I began to ask how anybody can know the true isotope ratios of these rocks. And which other published results could be completely wrong like these?
I realized I needed to find a more reliable source of Earth history. That’s where the fourth fact led me. I found in the pages of the Bible a collection of reliable eyewitness accounts that list the number of years since the beginning of the world—about 6,000. In a law court, reliable eyewitness testimony would trump circumstantial evidence such as isotope ratios. The prophets who wrote Scripture lived through the events they described. Secular scientists who taught me about billions of years never saw those supposed years. Science can’t even measure them.
‘Does science rule out the possibility of miracles? Or does science – with its predictable physical laws – define miracles when one of these laws is seemingly broken? That is the intriguing topic of our “Science and Miracles” video.’ https://creationmoments.com/
Psalm 104:25 “So is this great and wide sea, wherein are things creeping innumerable, both small and great beasts.”
‘Some of the strangest creatures you can possibly imagine live around undersea hydrothermal vents known as “smokers” that spew out volcanically heated water and minerals. One of the most unusual creatures is an armor-plated snail that never needs to eat!
The as-yet-unnamed snail was discovered in the Indian Ocean. The sides of the snail’s foot have overlapping scales. Like the rest of the shell, these scales are coated in iron sulfide. This coating is the result of bacteria that, it is thought, deposit the iron sulfide on all outer shell surfaces. Most mollusks have a gland in their esophagus that contain symbiotic bacteria. These bacteria turn sulfides in the water passing through the snail’s gills into nutrition for the snail. However, in all mollusks known until the discovery of this snail, the mollusks must still eat to have enough nutrition to live. This newly discovered snail has a gland that is 100 times larger than any other snail. It provides the snail with all the nutrition it needs, so it never needs to eat.
Psalm 139:14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
We often speak of a ‘mother’s love’. Well, ‘You might not know (but suspect)that in many parts of the country, the community so frowns on abortion that abortion clinics employ itinerant abortionists who parachute in and kill hundreds of babies in a two or three day span.
What requirements might there be to qualify (so to speak) as an itinerant abortionist, like, say Willie Parker? First and foremost, the capacity to abort women with a speed that puts an assembly line to shame.
Parker, who fancies himself a Christian, is prolific at his trade, aborting up to 45 babies a day. As for how late in pregnancy, there’s a kind of blinking yellow light at 24 weeks, 6 days, but there are always extenuating circumstances for the industrious Dr. Parker.
Planned Parenthood abortionist Colleen McNicholas (who is the go-to abortionist for reporters covering abortion in Missouri) is only 2/3rds as fast. A fawning profile in Marie Claire in 2016 casually observed, “By the end of her eight-hour workday, [McNicholas] will have terminated 31 pregnancies.”
But, of course, her motivation goes beyond her obvious nobility. As a post at Planned Parenthood observes (boldface in the original)
“Part of the problem with being so committed and feeling so passionate about an issue is that it’s hard to say no… because that means somebody is going without care, and what that means is, they’re probably going to have a baby they don’t want.
So ultimately, I end up saying, ‘I can do one more day.’”
Get it? Without the “care” that McNicholas administers so dutifully, a baby might sneak through. So, even when her hands are bone weary (and blood stained), she carries on.
These were MOTHERS who went into these clinics to rid themselves of their baby. Where was the ‘mother’s love’ or the mother’s natural affection for her unborn child? Romans 1:31 speaks of those without natural affection. Albert Barnes says ‘This expression denotes the want of affectionate regard towards their children. The attachment of parents to children is one of the strongest in nature, and nothing can overcome it but the most confirmed and established wickedness. And yet the apostle charges on the heathen generally the want of this affection. He doubtless refers here to the practice so common among heathens of exposing their children, or putting them to death. This crime, so abhorrent to all the feelings of humanity, was common among the heathen, and is still.’
Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
I had some thoughts about what is occurring in the USA wrapped around the word ‘racism’ but I think the following article by John Mackay explains it better than I could.
‘Mankind! This word has been a great description down through the years of who we are, and what we were made to be. It is derived ultimately from the old English Mann Cynn, back though several thousand years of traditions in Sanskrit about the hero Manu who survived the big flood along with his seven spiritual helpers. Manu is the ancestor of all living people so we are named after him. Hence the Anglicised description ‘the Kin (old English Cynn) of Manu’, which with typical English word play became Mankind, and then to the more common mankind, which surprise, surprise originally included women.
What most English speakers don’t appreciate, is that the second part of the word Cynn, (now ‘Kin’), is a Biblical concept. It is provably based on the Biblical teaching revealed by the Creator God in Genesis 1, that He made each group of creatures (humans included) as separate ‘Kinds’. Additionally, it is important to note: this history and meaning of the word kin, whether it be in the Hebrew, Greek or English languages is conceptually quite different from ‘race’.
In our Evidence News 03/2020, (sent out on 4 March 2020) we deliberately put a challenging series of statements, with the question: Which of the following are True or False? One of the statements was “There is only one race of men?” We then shared that all statements in the challenge list were false, including the ‘one race of man’ concept. (see full list at the end)
Why the need for this challenge?
The belief “There is only one race of men?” is incredibly popular amongst Evangelicals, particularly those in the USA who follow Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis. There is no doubt that the applaudable aims of such a statement are to deal with the evil extremes of American racism, and reject Adolf Hitler’s racist concept of superior Aryans, which was firmly based on evolutionism. Yet the backgrounds of both racisms are poles apart.
In the American situation it was white Europeans who enslaved black Africans, who were regarded by many as an inferior race. Hence it is incredibly unpopular to actually remind people that the racism of South Africa, the old UK, and the more modern USA, had nothing to do with evolutionism, but was usually justified by a misguided semi-Biblical concept about Noah’s three sons, Ham, Shem and Japheth, tied to belief that black people (the Hamites) were eternally cursed by God to be servants. (see full story in Genesis 9:18-27)
So, today’s Ham-ite claims attempt to refute racist behaviour by claiming there is only one ‘race of man’ which includes all humanity descended from the created first man Adam. It has become incredibly popular, as it runs parallel to the currently popular political stand in the west against racism. The One Race concept blames most racism on Darwinian evolution, whereas most evolutionists insist there is no link between evolution and racism, although Charles Darwin’s views would certainly be considered racist if expressed these days. (See quote from Darwin at end.)
Despite the anti-racist appeal of the term “human race,” to cover all living people, those who really want to take a Biblical as well as a long term effective stand against the evils of racism, must start by admitting that the Biblical record insists God made only ‘one Kind’ of man, not ‘one race’!
Let’s start by reviewing the traditional meaning of the word ‘race’, as reflected in the Oxford dictionary as well as in the history of the word as used in science. Race has a real and distinctly scientific meaning, but it is not the one being used either by white Australian Ken Ham’s or black African American Voddie Baucham’s in their popularisation and politicisation of the ‘one race’ concept.
The Oxford English dictionary defines the word “race” as: Noun: Each of the major groupings into which humankind is considered (in various theories or contexts) to be divided on the basis of physical characteristics or shared ancestry.
The dictionary also gives a biological definition: Biology: A population within a species that is distinct in some way, especially a subspecies.
The dictionary gives the origin of the word as: “Early 16th century (denoting a group with common features): via French from Italian razza, of unknown ultimate origin.” (Item in brackets in original) Reference: OED https://www.lexico.com/definition/race
If these definitions were applied to humanity, we could say there is only one Genus and one species of living humans, but there are populations within our one species which have distinguishing characteristics and shared ancestry so they can be easily grouped as distinct from other human groups e.g. Pygmies, Eskimos.
To really understand where ‘race’ fits into humanity we need to look at the real history of man from Genesis, as well as the history of biological classification, for both are strongly connected.
God made the first human beings, male and female, as fully separate living beings, unrelated to any other creature. All people who have lived since then are descendants of that first couple, Adam and Eve. As such, all humans are Biblically one Kind, a ‘naming’ factor which 5,000 years later played a provably significant part in the history of biological science.
Back in the days when scientists actually used the Biblical framework, a Swedish Botanist by the name of Carl Von Linne (1707-1778), later known by the Latin ‘Linnaeus’, invented the biological classification system still used today. Linnaeus is famed for his very workable two-part classification using the terms genus and species. His fully Biblical outlook shows in the fact that he actually borrowed the word ‘genus’ from the Latin version of Genesis chapter 1:11, where you read God made plants after their “genus,” or to use the old English, in separate ‘Kin’, derived from the old Anglo-Saxon ‘Cynn’, meaning related to each other but not to other ‘kin’. The Latin word ‘genus’ is used 10 times in the first chapter of Genesis, and is provably what the Hebrew author had in mind, as this is the same in Greek version of Genesis in the Bible translation called the Septuagint, translated by Hebrew speakers in Egypt in the 3rd century BC.
Linnaeus also noted there were recognisable subsets within the ‘genus’ and invented the biological concept of species (as in distinct or special). Then with closer observation, we have discovered that even within a species, there are distinguishable variations that are labelled “races”. This term applies across all living species, plants or animals. The term “race” was originally used to distinguish various subsets of grapes and wines that had distinctive characteristics. Later it was used to describe identifiable subgroups within any species of living things. For example: Equus caballus, i.e. domestic horses. Horses that were selected for their running ability, became a subgroup called racehorses, but strong pulling horses are called draught horses.
Now let’s return to the history of mankind. Adam and Eve were created as a separate Kind or Genus unrelated to apes, monkeys or any other living thing. By the days of Noah (approx. 1,600yrs After Creation), Adam’s descendants still belonged to the ‘one Kind ‘of man. But even the names of Noah’s three sons, Ham, Shem and Japheth, indicate obvious factors we could use to distinguish them and their descendants. Ham’s name would come to mean dark, and Japheth’s meant fair, both indicating increasing variation in skin colour.
After Noah’s Flood God instructed the people to spread over all the earth, but within a few generations they rebelled, gathered together and started building the Tower of Babel “to make a name for themselves” (Genesis 11:1-9). God punished them by splitting them into different language groups, which forced them to move away from one another. This achieved God’s purpose of getting humanity to spread out and fill the earth, but it also meant the subgroups would, from then on, only breed amongst themselves for many generations, thus reinforcing whatever distinctive genetic variations already in the initial subgroups, e.g. skin colour, hair type, etc. As the environment degenerated more genetic mutations occurred in all populations, but there could be differing mutations in each group, so differences would increase, even though all people are still one Kind and one species.
That period of separation has resulted in distinctive clusters of features that are still useful describing people, even in police reports e.g. the robbery was by an African-American, or the murderer was a male Caucasian, or the suspect was of Asian appearance. While these terms are currently more politically correct than black man, whitey or slant eyes, they nevertheless reflect real differences by which subgroups within the human Kind can be distinguished, and within which historically separate ‘breeding choice groups’ have socially and biologically strengthened such traits. Some of these are just harmless variations such as thick subcutaneous fat that gives Asian eyelids their shape. Some are serious problems, e.g. Tay Sachs disease caused by a mutation carried only by Ashkenazi Jews. This post-Babel separation followed by geographic isolation from other groups of mankind began to end in the mid 1700’s when the coming of world exploration (e.g. Captain Cook’s voyages) began a new genetic mixing of the ‘races’.
So, the present-day classification of mankind includes only one genus Homo, and one species sapiens, giving the scientific classification of humans as Homo sapiens. But within that ‘sapiens’ species there truly are groups of people who share distinctive characteristics that are definitely and provably real and ‘racial’ The fact that we are all one species is seen as modern-day mobility has allowed different people groups to mix, marry and have children. The offspring of such marriages are still often referred to as being of “mixed-race”.
So, do we gain anything by taking an American political situation, falsely blaming it on Hitler or evolutionism, then justifying that claim via a true Biblical stand against the mistreatment of our fellow humans, then finally claiming the one race concept is Biblical or Christian? The answer is no! To repeat: those who really want to take a Biblically factually accurate stand against the evils of racism, must start by admitting that God made only one Kind of man, not one race.
The well-intentioned attempt to make the word “race” equal to the word “kind” is not only false, it’s an attempt to turn real knowledge into a warm fuzzy and false philosophy, which is doomed to fail Biblically, theologically, scientifically, and politically.
The true solution to evil including that of mistreating fellow humans for any reason, is to deal with the original problem that led to humanity being split up. Our ancestors at the Tower of Babel rebelled against God because they had inherited the sinful nature brought into world by the ancestor of both them and us, the man Adam. Only the Creator of Adam, and therefore of every human being, can solve this problem, which He historically did when the Creator came to earth as the man Jesus, Saviour and Christ who paid the penalty for sin. Therefore, all people, whatever their ancestry, can be freed from the penalty of sin if they repent and put their faith in Christ, who will also return as the Judge and coming King of all.
Darwin on Races
“Lastly I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilisation than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risks the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is. The more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world.” Charles Darwin, Letter to William Graham, 3 July 1881 Darwin Correspondence Project, Letter DCP-LETT-13230 https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/
From Evidence News 03/03 4 March 2020
Which of following are true or false? * Aboriginals have been in Australia 40,000 years or more. * Wearing a face mask is useful in preventing Corona virus. * The Big Bang is scientifically accurate. * God made only one race of man. * In today’s world you can be anything you want to be! * The Aboriginal ‘Welcome to Country’ smoking ceremony is a harmless cultural event. * Genesis presupposes the existence of God.
They are all false, no matter how popular they are with scientists and the general public, Christian or non-Christian. Some are even too politically incorrect to mention, as the violence that erupted shows when the West Australian RSL tried to raise a motion wanting the Aboriginal ‘Welcome’ smoking ceremony removed from Anzac Day ceremonies. This is a move we would agree with, and this author would go even further, as all immigrants are forced to accept a ‘Welcome’ ceremony as part of their ‘nationalisation’ when they become citizens. Why object? Because the ceremony is not just cultural, but totally pagan, as well as demonic, and it locks Australian futures into the same Satanic delusion that took Aboriginals down into the stone-age, when they moved first to India and then to Australia. But of course, none of that can be mentioned in our politically correct culture that prefers myth to real history. https://askjohnmackay.com/human-race-is-there-only-one-race-of-man/
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female
In spite of what Moses wrote and what the Lord Jesus Christ Himself said some continue to question not only the Bible but science. For example; ‘T.L. from the United States writes:
I was in a debate with a friend of mine about the creation of gender. She stated that Adam could not have been created first because women have two X chromosomes. She goes on to address the X deactivation in women, saying that this only occurs because both X chromosomes are the same making it a “female” chromosome in both men and women (she also said that the master “switch” in males is them “switching” from the “default”). She goes on to say that men are “half female” and women are “fully female”, making them superior in that they bare life. She also said males are pretty much useless and that we can see this in other life (bees, the infrequency of male lions, “all female” lizards, etc). So my questions are, is the first X chromosome a “female” chromosome, even in men? And does this mean that God made Adam “half female”(as my friend puts it)?
No, the X chromosome isn’t a ‘female’ chromosome. Everyone needs it. And no, males (including Adam) are not ‘half female’.
First, your friend is wrong on the science. The idea that female is the ‘default’ embryological condition is now known to be false.1 This idea was based on a few studies in the mid-20th century, and it was thought to be reinforced in the early 1990s by the discovery of the SRY gene, a gene on the Y chromosome which plays a crucial role in testis development. Because of this, female sexual development was thought to proceed as a ‘default’ in the absence of SRY.The idea that female is the ‘default’ embryological condition is now known to be false
However, subsequent research overturned this idea. For instance, the absence of SRY isn’t enough to build a functioning ovary; two X chromosomes are needed. Women with only one X chromosome almost always have ovary dysfunction, and the vast majority are infertile. And those (very) few that can conceive and carry a pregnancy to term are at much higher risk of complications both during and after pregnancy.2
Moreover, some genes, if their products are present in high enough concentrations, can stop male development even when SRY is present. For instance, the NROB1 gene on the short arm of the X chromosome codes for a protein named DAX1. This protein plays an important role in the development of the adrenals, hypothalamus, pituitary, and gonads. The protein is also involved in maintaining hormone production in these glands after they are formed.3 People who have XY chromosomes, but have a duplication of the NROB1 gene, produce enough DAX1 to inhibit the products of SRY. This stops male development completely and the person develops female characteristics.4 This is not merely the taking over of a default; this is an abnormality that overrides the normal development of an XY person.
Furthermore, ovaries and testes require ongoing maintenance throughout life. Researchers found that the gene FOXL2 (on the long arm of chromosome 3) suppresses SOX9 (a gene crucial for male development that is found on the long arm of chromosome 17), which prevents certain cells in the ovary from differentiating differently into ‘testis-like’ cells.5 Similarly, the DMRT1 gene (found on the end of chromosome 9) suppresses certain genes involved in ovarian development. 6 If both require ongoing maintenance, then there is no ‘default’ gonad, whether the testis or the ovary. Many of the tools used for building and maintaining both ovaries and testes are found in the genome outside the “sex” chromosomes.
Together, this shows that proper female development is an active process, and it isn’t simply the ‘default’ path an embryo takes. Instead, during development, a set of cells migrates to the outside of the embryo and hangs out on the allantois. At the appropriate time, they chain up and do a conga line, enter the embryo, find the developing gonads, enter them, and get to work. Before these cells arrive, there is no sexual differentiation. As Kim and Capel explain:
“Unlike most developing organs in the embryo that follow a single developmental track, the gonad forms with the potential to develop as one of two alternative organs, an ovary or a testis. For this reason, the gonad primordium is called ‘the bipotential gonad’.”7
Since when is God limited by sex chromosomes in the gender he makes first?
Second, your friend is wrong on theology. Think about it: the all-powerful God couldn’t have created Adam first because of sex chromosomes? Since when is God limited by sex chromosomes in the gender he makes first?
At any rate, from a genetic standpoint, it seems much simpler to make Eve from Adam (as per Genesis 2). Why? All God would have to do to make Eve from Adam’s side is to erase the Y chromosomes in the cells taken from Adam’s body and duplicate the one X chromosome already present (Eve, the rib, and modern genetics). On the other hand, if God created Eve first, he would’ve had to form a Y chromosome de novo to make Adam from Eve. (This is like what God probably did in miraculously creating Jesus’ zygote—i.e. He took one of Mary’s eggs (and the haploid genome in it) and created a second haploid genome within the egg with a brand new Y chromosome.) Of course, neither of these ‘methods’ of creating one gender from the other is a problem for God, since he’s all-powerful.
Third, a woman’s two X chromosomes are not identical (with the possible exception of Eve), since one is inherited from each parent. And one of the pair is deactivated early in embryological development, because only one is needed for gene expression. Having both active would create an excess of many gene products and would lead to all sorts of problems. Nevertheless, as mentioned above and in the linked article, since single-X females are mostly infertile, the presence of a second X chromosome is important for normal female sexual development.
Fourth, comparing us to the rest of the animal kingdom is irrelevant, since sexual differentiation varies across animals. Some can even change their sex in response to environmental conditions (and of course be completely reproductively viable). For example, while some reptiles and fish can perform parthenogenesis (where the females produce young without fertilization from a male), it is generally uncommon and just a ‘fallback’ option in the absence or dearth of males (see ‘Asexual’ lizards and pioneer plants and The weird, wonderfully-designed sawfish). Nor can humans naturally perform parthenogenesis (Was the Virgin Birth non-miraculous?; and should Christians bother with atheists?). Birds sexual chromosomes are the opposite of humans (male birds are ZZ, females are ZW), and platypuses have a system that is unlike anything else.
whatyareckon 