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.”
‘Over a decade ago, British geneticist Dr. Steve Jones, of University College, London, opined that human evolution had ceased. He stated that there are three factors influencing evolution: natural selection, mutation and random change. Jones attributed the end of evolution to men becoming fathers much later in life than earlier centuries and, therefore, having a shorter reproductive period. This, he claimed, led to less deleterious mutations being removed from the population.
Referring to the same three factors, researchers at New York’s Columbia University have reached the opposite conclusion. They state that human evolution continues apace. Lead researcher Dr. Hakhamanesh Mostafavi said, “If a genetic variant influences survival, its frequency should change with the age of the surviving individuals”, suggesting that harmful variants should be less common in older populations, if that deleterious mutation has led to more deaths. His team suggests that “parents surviving into old age in good health can care for their children and grandchildren, increasing the later generations’ chances of surviving and reproducing.”
We should first note that such survival and selection of genetic traits is not evolution. Deleterious mutations are removed by natural selection, but any new mutation is likely to be deleterious to survival in the short term. Besides, none of this involves the creation of new genetic information, so this is not evolution. God made human beings with the genetic abilities to weed out harmful mutations. Positive generational care – a biblical concept – was God’s idea, not the result of random chance.’https://creationmoments.com/sermons/are-humans-evolving/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=are-humans-evolving&mc_cid=973ea0d325&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
Genesis 1:11 “And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.”
‘One of the criticisms of solar power is that it is so variable. Clearly, a solar plant is going to produce no energy at night and an inadequate supply when the sky is cloudy. On the other hand, a suitable size plant could over-produce when sunlight is intense.
Plants have a similar problem. The rapidly changing incidence of sunlight on their leaves could, conceivably, cause problems within the plant. However, researchers have discovered that plants have mechanisms to cope with these variations, and one such mechanism could answer the old question: “Why are plants green?”
Plants produce high energy carbohydrate molecules from water vapor and carbon dioxide by the well-known process of photosynthesis. This endothermic reaction requires the input of energy in the form of light, and the reaction is catalyzed by the green dye chlorophyll. What many of us have not considered is why chlorophyll is green.
White light is a mixture of all three primary colors – red, green and blue – which have increasing frequency and, hence, increasing energy, in that order. The remarkable thing about plants, therefore, is that they are absorbing light energy only at either end of the visible spectrum while rejecting – and reflecting – the middle of the spectrum, which is green. Researchers have shown that this selective absorption of certain frequencies minimizes “noise” and, therefore, enables the plant to cope with rapidly changing conditions of sunshine.
Psalm 51:11 “Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.”
‘Even though many frogs live much of their lives out of the water, they need water to reproduce. This can be a problem since some frogs live in trees and some even live in the desert!
For a tree frog, the trip from the treetops to a nearby pool is a long and dangerous journey. However, the Creator cares about all of His creatures. The leaves of the bromeliad that grows in the branches of many trees in the tropical forest form a private pool far above the ground. As a result, mama frog can raise her young without ever leaving the treetops!
The desert would seem to offer an even greater challenge for a frog. However, since it pleased the Creator to place frogs in the desert – maybe to challenge the evolutionists – He has also provided for their needs. It may rain only once every two years in the deserts of central Australia. When it does rain, the water-holding frogs emerge from their underground hideaways to lay their eggs in the puddles. Before the puddles disappear, not only do the eggs hatch, but the young grow and develop into frogs that are able to store water until the next rain. As the desert again takes over, the frogs dig themselves back into the ground and go into suspended animation until the next rains come. A year or two later, the new generation will emerge after the next rain to raise their young.
1 Corinthians 1:25 “Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.”
‘It sounds silly to ask whether bacteria can think. However, science has known for more than 100 years that the little guys can indeed think. Experiments in 1883 conducted by Wilhelm Pfeffer showed that bacteria will swim toward good food like chicken soup and away from poisons such as mop disinfectant.
Pfeffer also learned that bacteria can make decisions. He made sure that his bacteria knew the location of chicken soup. Then he separated them from it with a mild mixture of disinfectant. He found that the little fellows would swim as fast as they could through the disinfectant to get to the soup.
This is the same type of decision-making process you and I go through every day. We often tolerate the unpleasant to arrive at the pleasant. As a result of this research, scientists today talk about bacteria actually making decisions.
These conclusions amaze most people. That’s because we have been trained to think of intelligence in an evolutionary context. The “higher” or more evolved a creature is, the smarter we expect it to be. However, if we recognize, as the Bible says, that all life is the product of an intelligent Creator, we should not be surprised to find that intelligence has nothing to do with evolution. Every creature has been given as much intelligence as it needs by a Creator Who truly cares for every living creature – even bacteria!’https://creationmoments.com/sermons/can-bacteria-think-2/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=can-bacteria-think-2&mc_cid=78b91641ee&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
‘German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s husband has slammed millions of citizens as ‘lazy’ and ‘indolent’ for not yet taking a coronavirus vaccine.
Professor Joachim Sauer criticised those Germans that remain unvaccinated as ‘not open to the successes achieved by science’, comparing the ‘irrationality’ to Creationism in the United States of America.
Chancellor Merkel has expressed concerns that coronavirus restrictions in Germany may not stop a fourth wave currently believed to be present in the country.
Germany’s health minister has said the rapid rise in coronavirus cases means it is likely that everyone in the country who is not vaccinated will have caught Covid-19 by the end of the winter, and some of those will die.
Official figures showed more than 30,000 newly confirmed cases in Germany over the past 24 hours, an increase of about 50% compared to a week ago.
“It is really, absolutely, time to take action,” German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Thursday.
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.”
‘While the Bible teaches us that sex is a wonderful gift of God, evolutionists believe that sexual reproduction should not have evolved. According to evolutionists, if sexual reproduction were to develop, evolution is supposed to get rid of it.
To make matters worse, immobile plants use sexual reproduction. This creates a problem in transferring the male genes to the female for fertilization. Just to confound things even more, God uses insects and even mammals to transfer the pollen. Since evolutionists believe that plants were around for many millions of years before animals, evolutionists have yet another problem.
The European family of the Arum lilies attracts beetles and flies. When one of the insects lands on a flower, he finds a slick, oil-coated surface and ends up sliding down into a chamber filled with small hairs. Imprisoned, he finds a sweet sap that makes good eating. While he is gorging himself on the sap and getting sticky in the process, the male part of the flower showers him with pollen. The next day, the sticky, pollen-coated insect finds that the doors to his prison are open. So he flies off to another flower to unwittingly deliver his load of pollen!
‘The existence of humans suggests that, at some point, there must have been a first human. Neither evolutionists nor creationists deny this. However, creationists believe that Adam (Genesis 1–2) was the first human. But whether the first human was Adam or some unnamed, recently-evolved person, where did that person learn to speak?
Evidence suggests that humans do not learn to speak unless they are taught by someone who already knows how to speak. Additionally, the archaeological record indicates that fully-developed languages have been in existence as long as humans have been (Elgin 1973, 44). For these reasons, Curtis, in a 1990 article, argues that a personal creator was responsible for the existence of the first human.
Linguistic Evidence
Linguistic research suggests that languages have not evolved from a prehistoric development period (Eglin 1973, 44). Rather, languages have always existed with the same communication potential as they currently possess. In fact, it is possible that they even held greater communication potential in the past.
An example of an inscribed clay tablet
Archaeological Evidence
The archaeological finds from the past 100 years of excavations have demonstrated that written language appears well developed in the earliest records of civilization. For example, the Ebla tablets date to about 2000 BC. These tablets contain writing in a fully-developed, phonetic language.
How Do People Learn How to Speak?
Some Darwinian anthropologists have suggested that if, in the process of evolution, there was a transition from animal to man, this transition would have included the acquisition of language. However, one of these anthropologists, Humbolt, realized that man cannot speak without already being human. For him, this created an unsolvable problem regarding the origin of speech (Lyell 1873).
Another problem with determining the origin of speech from an evolutionary perspective is that in so-called primitive cultures, the languages tend to be more complex than in more advanced cultures. Furthermore, animals with the physical capability to use logical speech do not do so. Studies have shown that animals that respond to commands do so based on vocal tones rather than the spoken words. Thus, all attempts to solve the evolutionary origin of language have failed.
Every child that learns how to speak learns from someone who already knows how to speak. There do not seem to be any exceptions to this rule. Feral children who grow up without contact with spoken language did not learn to speak until they came into contact with speaking individuals. Once they had heard speech, they were able to learn how to speak (Tomb 1925).
What Does this All Mean?
Since multiple languages appear to have existed in fully developed forms in the earliest known civilizations, it appears that the languages do not have one common root. Rather, each language appeared independently of the others.
This evidence aligns well with the biblical account. From the creation of Adam until the Tower of Babel, there was only one language on earth (Genesis 11:1). Curtis suggests that God taught the first man, Adam, to speak. It is clear that Adam spoke a well-developed language because he was able to name the animals (Genesis 2:19). From that point on, each generation learned to speak from the previous one.
Later, when God confused the languages at the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:7), He miraculously created a number of additional unrelated, fully-formed languages. The pattern of language learning continued. Each person learned to speak from the previous generation.
Conclusion
The scientific evidence obtained through linguistic and archaeological studies suggest that the first human who learned how to speak must have learned from someone who already possessed the capability of speech. This first person must have learned from someone of a higher order than humans. This correlates well with the biblical account of God’s creation of Adam. Adam must have received the ability and knowledge to speak from God himself. The study of language demonstrates that there must be a creator God. No human can speak a language unless that person has been taught. Furthermore, languages have not arisen from some lesser forms of communication. They appeared early in history, fully developed. The languages present today do not share a common root, suggesting that they appeared as separate, well-developed languages. This accords well with the account of the Tower of Babel.
References
Curtis, William M. 1990. “Human Language Demands a Creator.” The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism 2:1, 69–72.
Elgin, Suzette H. 1973. What is Linguistics? Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Inc.
whatyareckon 